High-Ons Unite to Pass Ron Paul the Presidential Spliff

[Gannon]

I guess, since he's being rail-roaded out of the Republicrite party, we'll have to write him onto our ballots...but Ron Paul spoke some great truths yesterday.


“If we are allowed to deal with our eternity and all that we believe in spiritually, and if we’re allowed to read any book that we want under freedom of speech, why is it we can’t put into our body whatever we want?” Paul told more than 1,000 people at a rally in Vancouver, a suburb of Portland, Ore.



He talks to his audience...Portland!...


Cheers!
John

[oladub]

Maybe some crazy people might want to buy raw milk from their Amish neighbor instead of buying rBGH milk trucked across the country and sold in WalMart. The FDA approves of the latter.

Not much security in Vancouver, not many neckties, and no teleprompter.

Vancouver: The crowd outside
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Xp-...ature=youtu.be
Vancouver Speech part 1, 39min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVmXjTFxAH0
Vancouver Speech part 2, 5min19sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6lBI39Dntk

Ron Paul raised $1.3M yesterday in small donations. Meanwhile, Adelson is writing another $10M check for Newt and John Weger, Navy Assistant General Council, ordered military personnel not to march in a Ron Paul gathering even if out of uniform.

[rb336]

paulites crack me up

[Crumbled_pavement]

paulites crack me up

Ditto for me.

[oladub]

The blue pills are working fine. No need to increase your dosage.

[oladub]

Which other candidate would acknowledge this?

"We've slipped away from a true Republic," "Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen." -Ron Paul 2/18/12

[RaumVogel]

Which other candidate would acknowledge this?

"We've slipped away from a true Republic," "Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen." -Ron Paul 2/18/12

This is what the greatest generation fought for? pathetic. And true.

[rb336]

Which other candidate would acknowledge this?

"We've slipped away from a true Republic," "Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen." -Ron Paul 2/18/12

And, as is true of the true-believer, his form of libertarianism would create a country where the corporations really do hold all the power

paulites crack me up

[Occurrence]

paulites crack me up

What's a paulite?

[oladub]

And, as is true of the true-believer, his form of libertarianism would create a country where the corporations really do hold all the power

paulites crack me up

They already do. Keep taking the blue pills. They seem to be working. There are the Bush/Obama Wall street bailout, corporate subsidies, smaller competition regulated out of existence, ever more NAFTA type agreements, the Fed printing money and handing it to it's member banks to loan to taxpayers at interest, and corporate wars.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

what's a paulite?

v


vote for ron paul at the michigan primary on feb 28!

[maxx]

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=bill+...ed=0CEgQrQMwAA

[rb336]

They already do. Keep taking the blue pills. They seem to be working. There are the Bush/Obama Wall street bailout, corporate subsidies, smaller competition regulated out of existence, ever more NAFTA type agreements, the Fed printing money and handing it to it's member banks to loan to taxpayers at interest, and corporate wars.

Keep on believing, bub, er dub. There is not one thing Paul would do to weaken corporate power. NOTHING. ok, i know you will say "he wouldn't bail out the banks" but that would do NOTHING to reduce the power of the banks and ignores the VAST damage a dead BoA would inflict on the economy. It's a simpleton's answer to an immensely complex problem. Would Paul implement ONE new regulation to keep the banks from more and more mergers, or to prevent the creation of more bogus derivatives? Would he force the break up of the megabanks or other defacto monopolies?

[rb336]

ps - paulites crack me up

[Pam]

v


vote for ron paul at the michigan primary on feb 28!

We heard you the first 10 times.

[rb336]

We heard you the first 10 times.

was it only 10???

[rb336]

I've got an even better idea! we can still vote for Michelle Bachman or Herman Cain!!!!!

[oladub]

Keep on believing, bub, er dub. There is not one thing Paul would do to weaken corporate power. NOTHING. ok, i know you will say "he wouldn't bail out the banks" but that would do NOTHING to reduce the power of the banks and ignores the VAST damage a dead BoA would inflict on the economy. It's a simpleton's answer to an immensely complex problem. Would Paul implement ONE new regulation to keep the banks from more and more mergers, or to prevent the creation of more bogus derivatives? Would he force the break up of the megabanks or other defacto monopolies?

Believing is something Obamatrons were supposed to do four years ago.

Offhand-
1) End all corporate subsidies.
2) End corporate wars for resources
3) End bank bailouts
4) Abolish the Federal Reserve
5) End NAFTA, GATT, OPIC, and other such agreements
6) Put corrupt bankers in prison

A dead Bank of America would result in more efficient banks picking up it's pieces. You can cheerlead for B of A.. You have to . You're an Obama supporter. Why otherwise would you always take the side of the big banks and corporations? Is there anything that Chris Dodd ever touched that wasn't corrupt? The reason Ron Paul can say what most people realize and the other four candidates don't:

"We've slipped away from a true Republic," "Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen." -Ron Paul 2/18/12

Is that the other four candidates are supportive of this slippage. Either the statement is true or it isn't. You apparently thing it is incorrect.

[Pam]

was it only 10???

I don't know. It was an estimate.

[rb336]

Believing is something Obamatrons were supposed to do four years ago.

Offhand-
1) End all corporate subsidies.
2) End corporate wars for resources
3) End bank bailouts
4) Abolish the Federal Reserve
5) End NAFTA, GATT, OPIC, and other such agreements
6) Put corrupt bankers in prison

Not one of these things would shrink the power of mega corporations an iota.

A dead Bank of America would result in more efficient banks picking up it's pieces. You can cheerlead for B of A.. You have to . You're an Obama supporter. Why otherwise would you always take the side of the big banks and corporations?

god, how naive can that answer be. So you think smaller, more efficient banks would jump in? how would they do that? You think they could AFFORD to pick up the pieces? No, other megabanks would be the only ones who could. you don't think the ripples of a dead BoA would result in a massive economic meltdown that would make 2008 look like a picnic? If you think I'm pro megabank, you, as usual, aren't paying attention -- I want them broken up, I want venture banks and regular banks kept separate. Your boy would never do that. He would never break up the media monopolies either.

Is there anything that Chris Dodd ever touched that wasn't corrupt? The reason Ron Paul can say what most people realize and the other four candidates don't:

"We've slipped away from a true Republic," "Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen." -Ron Paul 2/18/12

Is that the other four candidates are supportive of this slippage. Either the statement is true or it isn't. You apparently thing it is incorrect.

What has Dodd got to do with anything? Never liked him, never will [[he supported some of Dubya's worst ideas), but I would lay money on your statement being incorrect. actually, I can disprove it in one phrase - his support of job re-training programs

As I said before, that quote from Paul is true, but you have yet to provide ANY evidence of what he would do to prevent us from slipping into a corporate feudal system. What is needed is what his version of libertarianism would never allow

[Occurrence]

ps - paulites crack me up

As opposed to someone who supports Obama or Romney?

[rb336]

As opposed to someone who supports Obama or Romney?

No one I have ever met swallows hook-line-sinker for Obama or Romney the way Paulites do for their idol. Paulites take what Paul says as absolute fact and either ignore or rationalize [[odd word, that) the absurdities of his dogma. Neither Obama nor Romney is an ideologue, both are, for the most part, pragmatists [[although Romney is more of a slimy one). Paul is so much of an ideologue he makes the Pope look agnostic

[oladub]

rb336: Not one of these things would shrink the power of mega corporations an iota.

Are you saying then that if corporations are not subsidized with cash, bailouts, preferential agreements, preferred legal treatment, and military support, as is the case, their power would not be affected one iota? I disagree.

god, how naive can that answer be. So you think smaller, more efficient banks would jump in? how would they do that? You think they could AFFORD to pick up the pieces? No, other megabanks would be the only ones who could. you don't think the ripples of a dead BoA would result in a massive economic meltdown that would make 2008 look like a picnic? If you think I'm pro megabank, you, as usual, aren't paying attention -- I want them broken up, I want venture banks and regular banks kept separate. Your boy would never do that. He would never break up the media monopolies either.

Your solution , as exemplified in Obama's handoff of billions of bad bank debt from Wall Street to taxpayers on Christmas Eve 2009, is different from letting banks go bankrupt in which case the viable parts of such banks are purchased by surviving, sometimes smaller, banks. The losses Obama assigned taxpayers could have, instead, come out of the hides of bank share and bond holders. I don't think we will see that happen with Obama whose second largest campaign contribution was from Goldman Sachs or from Romney whose largest contributor is Goldman Sachs. Obviously, you prefer Goldman Sach's Democratic candidate to Goldman Sach's Republican hopeful. I know it goes against the fiber of liberals and conservative elected officials on corporate doles, but firms should be accountable for their own losses, and contracts should be honored.

You definitely wouldn't be happy with Ron Paul. Lobbyists avoid him, no wars, etc.. No, he probably wouldn't break up media monopolies but he would oppose the rules in place and lack of access to airwaves which allow the monopolies to exists and the efforts afoot to control and monitor the internet.

What has Dodd got to do with anything? Never liked him, never will [[he supported some of Dubya's worst ideas), but I would lay money on your statement being incorrect. actually, I can disprove it in one phrase - his support of job re-training programs

To retrain Americans let go because of NAFTA and other such free trade programs? I was thinking of Dodd as the architect of so much recent banking legislation as the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee during the first two years of the Obama administration.

As I said before, that quote from Paul is true, but you have yet to provide ANY evidence of what he would do to prevent us from slipping into a corporate feudal system. What is needed is what his version of libertarianism would never allow.

I somehow before missed where you said that quote from Paul was true and still can't find it.. We are, however, already slipping into a corporate feudal system but not because of Paul.

[Gannon]

Oddly, the folks I know who support Ron Paul do so BECAUSE they are sick of the hook, line, and sinker bullshit of standard politics on both sides of the aisle.

In my lifetime, I've never seen a person in such a strong position to create a third party. There is momentum with this guy, even moreso when the mainstream media is caught red-handed ignoring him and lying about how much support he actually has. Then there is the mechanizations within the party...Maine will be remembered by many as one of the most blatant abuses of power, amidst a mad-scramble to maintain control of their status quo.


I'm on the fence...it is either continuing the Obama fiasco, which I'm leaning towards...or Paul. I will at least be Republican for a day next week, if the public declaration is the only threat.


He is not some Messiah, nor was the current President. I merely thought it funny he would broach this topic, with his uncommon clarity and apparent honesty. Curious he would bring it up the same week the administration swerves away from their previous trajectory over medical use of cannabis...although I didn't fully read the report last week.


Cheers!
Back to being Republican, if only for a day!

[rb336]

Are you saying then that if corporations are not subsidized with cash, bailouts, preferential agreements, preferred legal treatment, and military support, as is the case, their power would not be affected one iota? I disagree.

now read carefully what I'm saying, not what you THINK I'm saying:
1) The way things are now, allowing giant banks to fail would have a devastating impact on the broader economy from which it may take tens of years to recover. Would you like that outcome? and no, you can't answer with your fairy tale of smaller banks just picking up the pieces, because, well, it's a fairy tale

2) The way to prevent a broad economic disaster is to break up those giant banks and enforce anti-trust laws. How would Paul feel about that?

3) Paul's anti-regulatory stance would be the ultimate preferential legal treatment.

Your solution , as exemplified in Obama's handoff of billions of bad bank debt from Wall Street to taxpayers on Christmas Eve 2009, is different from letting banks go bankrupt in which case the viable parts of such banks are purchased by surviving, sometimes smaller, banks. The losses Obama assigned taxpayers could have, instead, come out of the hides of bank share and bond holders. I don't think we will see that happen with Obama whose second largest campaign contribution was from Goldman Sachs or from Romney whose largest contributor is Goldman Sachs. Obviously, you prefer Goldman Sach's Democratic candidate to Goldman Sach's Republican hopeful. I know it goes against the fiber of liberals and conservative elected officials on corporate doles, but firms should be accountable for their own losses, and contracts should be honored.

To quote Reagan "there you go again" with your fairy tale. Smaller banks wouldn't be able to cope with the financial issues that would come with the pieces of a failed mega bank. A mid-sized bank might decide to try, mostly to bump themselves into the upper realm, but would likely then fail again. A failed mega bank wouldn't send ripples through the economy, it would send a tsunami across it.

You definitely wouldn't be happy with Ron Paul. Lobbyists avoid him, no wars, etc.. No, he probably wouldn't break up media monopolies but he would oppose the rules in place and lack of access to airwaves which allow the monopolies to exists and the efforts afoot to control and monitor the internet.

So he would FORCE the monopolies to give me equal access to the airwaves? that is a very un-libertarian stance. What rules would he oppose? [[and don't just regurgitate the BS about the bailouts like you usually do. It seems to be your only argument)

What gives you the idea that I like lobbyists? Or wars? Wars are sometimes a necessary evil. You still mistake my arguments for the constitutionality for support of the action, although I DO think supporting people trying to overthrow tyrants is a good thing.

To retrain Americans let go because of NAFTA and other such free trade programs? I was thinking of Dodd as the architect of so much recent banking legislation as the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee during the first two years of the Obama administration.

specifics please. Dodd did a number of good things and a number of not good things. You merely gave a blanket comment which I showed was not warranted.

I somehow before missed where you said that quote from Paul was true and still can't find it.. We are, however, already slipping into a corporate feudal system but not because of Paul.

Probably because you looked for the exact phrase instead of inference