Thread: The media just won't let up on Ron Paul

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Truth time....If Paul decided no longer to be for legal pot 98% of his support would leave.....The other 2% staying cause they are to high to realize what happened.

... this one got me. Had to "like" this one.

Originally Posted by jviehe

And I just havent seen it. They repeat what Paul says, but they dont do the thinking and research required to agree with it philisophically. In essence THEY agree with Paul, they havent yet gotten to where they think of it in terms of "Paul agrees with ME".

At least try holding mainstream Democrats and Republican to the same standard. The great bulk of voters supporting any candidate aren't going to take the time, or have the inclination, to think deeply about the candidates ideology. But at least Paul has an ideology to think about.

Your original claim was that the more people understood Paul's positions, the less popular he would be, and I still think that's wrong in two ways: First, there's far more negative misunderstanding, and misrepresentation, of his ideas than there is positive. While an accurate portrayal of his views might lose him some of his current supporters, I'm saying it would gain the support of more of his detractors. Second, the only reason you can even posit such 'discovery' is that he has an ideology to understand. I don't see how supporters of the 'commercial' candidates could ever be said to 'understand' their candidates views given how vague, inconsistent and unprincipled they are. If voters came to understood that these candidates have hardly any clear values, outside a desire for power, they would be even more dismayed than the supposedly guileless Paul supporters.

Dblack,
Ideology? You're kidding?
The ideology is to become wealthy.
Except for Paul.

Originally Posted by dblack

At least try holding mainstream Democrats and Republican to the same standard. The great bulk of voters supporting any candidate aren't going to take the time, or have the inclination, to think deeply about the candidates ideology. But at least Paul has an ideology to think about.

Your original claim was that the more people understood Paul's positions, the less popular he would be, and I still think that's wrong in two ways: First, there's far more negative misunderstanding, and misrepresentation, of his ideas than there is positive. While an accurate portrayal of his views might lose him some of his current supporters, I'm saying it would gain the support of more of his detractors. Second, the only reason you can even posit such 'discovery' is that he has an ideology to understand. I don't see how supporters of the 'commercial' candidates could ever be said to 'understand' their candidates views given how vague, inconsistent and unprincipled they are. If voters came to understood that these candidates have hardly any clear values, outside a desire for power, they would be even more dismayed than the supposedly guileless Paul supporters.

I do hold them to the same standard. But the topic is Paul.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Truth time....If Paul decided no longer to be for legal pot 98% of his support would leave.....The other 2% staying cause they are to high to realize what happened.

Sounds more like bullshit to me, but hey, I guess I should expect that by now.

Not every single Paul supporter smokes pot, just like not every single Tea Party is a racist just because 1 or 2 people in a crowd of 2000 have a racist sign. It's bullshit to push everyone in a group into one category. It's bigoted and stupid, not to mention hypocritical of you since you complain about liberals doing the same thing.

Also, apparently you have no actual clue why Paul believes the FEDERAL drug laws should be abolished (not State laws - those would still be on the books, per the 10th Amendment). I'll make this shit simple for you since you refuse to actually debate anything or put together a coherent argument for you disagreement on his positions, instead referring to YOUR OPINION as fact, here goes, don't strain your brain too much:

1. It's unconstutional. Nothing in Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to ban drugs at the FEDERAL level, hence why to ban alcohol, an Amendment had to be passed for Prohibition in the 20's and 30's to become a reality - you have to have an amendment to ban drugs, not just unconstitutional legislation, that is his biggest problem with the "Drug War". Alcohol Prohibition officially ended during FDR's presidency, but just like with Federal drug legislation, once it was abolished with the 18th Amendment, some states continued to have their own Prohibition laws like Georgia, which kept their laws on the books until the 1960's. In other words, getting rid of the DEA and Federal drug laws WILL NOT GET RID OF STATE PROHIBITION OF DRUGS. Also, nothing in Article 2 gives the President such power.

2. It's incredibly expensive - well over a trillion dollars has been spent on this unwinnable "Drug War" since the 1960's and to make matters worse, drug use has at least stayed the same since the 1960's, not decreased.

How the War on Drugs Harms American Health | Top 10 Unhealthy Side Effects of the War on Drugs | Healthland | TIME.com

"June 17 marks the 40th anniversary of President Nixon's declaration of war on drugs, an effort that has cost the U.S. $1 trillion to date. What have we gotten for our investment?

Not much that's good. Drug use in the U.S. has dropped since its peak in 1979, when surveys showed that 54% of high school seniors reported using ... an illegal drug at least once in the past year; that proportion has bounced up and down since 1988 and has settled at about 38%. But the rate of the most dangerous type of drug use — daily use — has remained virtually unchanged since 1975 for marijuana, cocaine and opioids."


Read more: How the War on Drugs Harms American Health | Top 10 Unhealthy Side Effects of the War on Drugs | Healthland | TIME.com

3. Just like with welfare and the "War on Poverty" it doesn't work, nor will it actually get rid of drug users or drug use, just like LBJ's "War on Poverty" has not and will not get rid of poverty, it is impossible. It's also impossible to get rid of drug use 100%. In addition, the fact that it is illegal is what creates all the gang violence and other violence associated with the illicit drug trade, as well as the black market and sky rocketing price of illegal drugs compared to the same drugs when drugs were legal at the Federal level. An ounce of cocaine in the 1920's cost about 1 cent. Look at the price now. Why is that significant? Because just like with every other commodity, when the government interferes in that market and regulates it, you get sky rocketing prices. And that is important because its the increased cost of the drugs that creates the black market for it (because money can be made in its illicit trade), which inevitably leads to violence in that market. Alcohol Prohibition worked the exact same way. Ever hear of Al Capone? Yeah, folks like him and his gang disappeared almost over night with Prohibition was abolished.

The United States Prohibition of Alcohol - 1920-1933 - The Effects of Prohibition

"Immediately after the 18th Amendment went into effect there was a dramatic decrease in alcohol consumption that made many advocates hopeful that it would be a success. In the early 20’s the consumption rate was 30% lower than it was before prohibition but later in the decade, as illegal supplies increased and a new generation began to ignore the law and reject the attitude of self-sacrifice, more Americans once again decided to indulge. In a sense, prohibition was a success if only for the fact that it took years after repeal before consumption rates reached those of pre-prohibition.

Advocates for prohibition thought that once liquor licenses were revoked reform organizations and churches could persuade the American public not to drink, “liquor traffickers” would not oppose the new law and saloons would disappear. There were two schools of thought amongst prohibitionists.

One group hoped to create educational campaigns and within 30 years American would be a drink free nation, however they never received the support they were looking for. The other group wanted to see vigorous enforcement that would essentially wipe out all alcohol supplies. This group was also disappointed as law enforcement could not get the support of the government they needed for an all-out enforcement campaign. During the depression the funding was not there and with only 1,500 agents nationwide they could not compete with the tens of thousands of individuals who either wanted to drink or wanted to profit from others drinking.

The innovation of Americans to get what they want is evident in the resourcefulness used to obtain alcohol during prohibition. This era saw the rise of the speakeasy, home distiller, bootlegger, rum-runner and many of the gangster myths associated with it.

Many rural Americans began to make their own hooch, ‘near’ beer and corn whiskey. Stills sprung up across the country and many people made a living during the depression, supplying neighbors with their moonshine. The mountains of the Appalachian states are famous for moonshiners and although it was decent enough to drink, the spirits that came out of these stills were often stronger than anything that could have been purchased before prohibition. The moonshine would often be used to fuel the cars and trucks that carried the illegal liquor to their distribution points and the police chases of these transports have become equally famous. With all of the amateur distillers and brewers trying their hand at the craft there are many accounts of things going wrong: stills blowing up, newly bottled beer exploding and alcohol poisoning.


Rum-running also saw a revival as a trade in the United States. Liquor was smuggled in station wagons, trucks and boats from Mexico, Europe, Canada and the Caribbean. The term “The Real McCoy” came out of this era. It’s attributed to Captain William S. McCoy who facilitated most of the rum running via ships during prohibition and would never water down his imports, making his the “real” thing. McCoy, a non-drinker himself, began running rum from the Caribbean into Florida shortly after the beginning of prohibition. One encounter with the Coast Guard shortly thereafter stopped McCoy from completing runs on his own. The innovative McCoy set up a network of smaller ships that would meet his boat just outside U.S. waters and carry his supplies into the country.

Speakeasies were underground bars that discreetly served patrons liquor, often including food service, live bands and shows. The term speakeasy is said to come from bartenders telling patrons to “speak easy” when ordering so as not to be overheard some 30 years before prohibition. Speakeasies were often unmarked establishments or were behind or underneath legal businesses. Corruption was rampant during the time and although raids were common, owners would bribe police officers to ignore their business or give them notice of when a raid was planned. While the "speakeasy" was often funded by organized crime and could be very elaborate and upscale, the "blind pig" was a dive for the less desirable drinker.

Probably one of the most popular ideas of the time was that the mob held control of the majority of the illegal liquor trafficking. For the most part this is untrue, although in concentrated areas gangsters did run the liquor racket. Chicago was one of those cities where they did control distribution. At the beginning of prohibition the “Outfit” organized all of the local Chicago gangs and split the city and suburbs into areas, each of which would be controlled by a different gang who would handle the liquor sales within their district.

Underground breweries and distilleries were hidden throughout the city. Beer could easily be produced and distributed to meet the demand of the city but because many liquors require aging the stills in Chicago Heights and on Taylor and Division streets could not produce fast enough and the majority of spirits were smuggled in from Canada. This distribution operation out of Chicago soon reached Milwaukee, Kentucky and Iowa.

The Outfit would sell liquor to the lower gangs at wholesale prices and even though the agreements were meant to be set in stone, corruption was rampant and without the ability to resolve conflicts in the courts they often resorted to violence in retaliation. After Al Capone assumed control of the Outfit in 1925 one of the bloodiest gang wars in history ensued.

While prohibition was originally intended to reduce beer consumption in particular, it ended up increasing the consumption of hard liquor. Brewing requires more space both in production and distribution than liquor, making it harder to conceal. This rise in the spirit consumption of the time played a big part in the martini and mixed drink culture that we’re familiar with and “fashion” we associate with the era."

^^^Read this article and you will see that the exact same stuff (especially bolded stuff above) occurs with drug prohibition.

4. It has desensitized law enforcement to breaches of civil rights and the Bill of Rights specifically. More and more SWAT Team raids bust in on people's homes, even without warrants, and then discover "oops you had no drugs". In other words the drug war is a slippery slope that has helped lead to the emergence of the police state we are seeing now.

5. When drugs are legalized, it appears, that just like with alcohol, rates tend to go down, it costs less money, AND violent crime associated with it drops by a huge margin. Example: Portugal

Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME

"At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.
(See the world's most influential people in the 2009 TIME 100.)

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Portugal's case study is of some interest to lawmakers in the U.S., confronted now with the violent overflow of escalating drug gang wars in Mexico. The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use."


These are the primary reasons Paul and many of his supporters are opposed to the war on drugs, not because, as you say, we "all smoke pot".

So are you ready to actually debate or are you just going to hide behind your empty Rush Limbaugh talking points, opinion, slander, and straw men arguments?

Once again, I'm waiting to hand your ass to you in a debate.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

Sounds more like bullshit to me, but hey, I guess I should expect that by now.

Not every single Paul supporter smokes pot, just like not every single Tea Party is a racist just because 1 or 2 people in a crowd of 2000 have a racist sign. It's bullshit to push everyone in a group into one category. It's bigoted and stupid, not to mention hypocritical of you since you complain about liberals doing the same thing.

Also, apparently you have no actual clue why Paul believes the FEDERAL drug laws should be abolished (not State laws - those would still be on the books, per the 10th Amendment). I'll make this shit simple for you since you refuse to actually debate anything or put together a coherent argument for you disagreement on his positions, instead referring to YOUR OPINION as fact, here goes, don't strain your brain too much:

1. It's unconstutional. Nothing in Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to ban drugs at the FEDERAL level, hence why to ban alcohol, an Amendment had to be passed for Prohibition in the 20's and 30's to become a reality - you have to have an amendment to ban drugs, not just unconstitutional legislation, that is his biggest problem with the "Drug War". Alcohol Prohibition officially ended during FDR's presidency, but just like with Federal drug legislation, once it was abolished with the 18th Amendment, some states continued to have their own Prohibition laws like Georgia, which kept their laws on the books until the 1960's. In other words, getting rid of the DEA and Federal drug laws WILL NOT GET RID OF STATE PROHIBITION OF DRUGS. Also, nothing in Article 2 gives the President such power.

2. It's incredibly expensive - well over a trillion dollars has been spent on this unwinnable "Drug War" since the 1960's and to make matters worse, drug use has at least stayed the same since the 1960's, not decreased.

How the War on Drugs Harms American Health | Top 10 Unhealthy Side Effects of the War on Drugs | Healthland | TIME.com

"June 17 marks the 40th anniversary of President Nixon's declaration of war on drugs, an effort that has cost the U.S. $1 trillion to date. What have we gotten for our investment?

Not much that's good. Drug use in the U.S. has dropped since its peak in 1979, when surveys showed that 54% of high school seniors reported using ... an illegal drug at least once in the past year; that proportion has bounced up and down since 1988 and has settled at about 38%. But the rate of the most dangerous type of drug use — daily use — has remained virtually unchanged since 1975 for marijuana, cocaine and opioids."


Read more: How the War on Drugs Harms American Health | Top 10 Unhealthy Side Effects of the War on Drugs | Healthland | TIME.com

3. Just like with welfare and the "War on Poverty" it doesn't work, nor will it actually get rid of drug users or drug use, just like LBJ's "War on Poverty" has not and will not get rid of poverty, it is impossible. It's also impossible to get rid of drug use 100%. In addition, the fact that it is illegal is what creates all the gang violence and other violence associated with the illicit drug trade, as well as the black market and sky rocketing price of illegal drugs compared to the same drugs when drugs were legal at the Federal level. An ounce of cocaine in the 1920's cost about 1 cent. Look at the price now. Why is that significant? Because just like with every other commodity, when the government interferes in that market and regulates it, you get sky rocketing prices. And that is important because its the increased cost of the drugs that creates the black market for it (because money can be made in its illicit trade), which inevitably leads to violence in that market. Alcohol Prohibition worked the exact same way. Ever hear of Al Capone? Yeah, folks like him and his gang disappeared almost over night with Prohibition was abolished.

The United States Prohibition of Alcohol - 1920-1933 - The Effects of Prohibition

"Immediately after the 18th Amendment went into effect there was a dramatic decrease in alcohol consumption that made many advocates hopeful that it would be a success. In the early 20’s the consumption rate was 30% lower than it was before prohibition but later in the decade, as illegal supplies increased and a new generation began to ignore the law and reject the attitude of self-sacrifice, more Americans once again decided to indulge. In a sense, prohibition was a success if only for the fact that it took years after repeal before consumption rates reached those of pre-prohibition.

Advocates for prohibition thought that once liquor licenses were revoked reform organizations and churches could persuade the American public not to drink, “liquor traffickers” would not oppose the new law and saloons would disappear. There were two schools of thought amongst prohibitionists.

One group hoped to create educational campaigns and within 30 years American would be a drink free nation, however they never received the support they were looking for. The other group wanted to see vigorous enforcement that would essentially wipe out all alcohol supplies. This group was also disappointed as law enforcement could not get the support of the government they needed for an all-out enforcement campaign. During the depression the funding was not there and with only 1,500 agents nationwide they could not compete with the tens of thousands of individuals who either wanted to drink or wanted to profit from others drinking.

The innovation of Americans to get what they want is evident in the resourcefulness used to obtain alcohol during prohibition. This era saw the rise of the speakeasy, home distiller, bootlegger, rum-runner and many of the gangster myths associated with it.

Many rural Americans began to make their own hooch, ‘near’ beer and corn whiskey. Stills sprung up across the country and many people made a living during the depression, supplying neighbors with their moonshine. The mountains of the Appalachian states are famous for moonshiners and although it was decent enough to drink, the spirits that came out of these stills were often stronger than anything that could have been purchased before prohibition. The moonshine would often be used to fuel the cars and trucks that carried the illegal liquor to their distribution points and the police chases of these transports have become equally famous. With all of the amateur distillers and brewers trying their hand at the craft there are many accounts of things going wrong: stills blowing up, newly bottled beer exploding and alcohol poisoning.


Rum-running also saw a revival as a trade in the United States. Liquor was smuggled in station wagons, trucks and boats from Mexico, Europe, Canada and the Caribbean. The term “The Real McCoy” came out of this era. It’s attributed to Captain William S. McCoy who facilitated most of the rum running via ships during prohibition and would never water down his imports, making his the “real” thing. McCoy, a non-drinker himself, began running rum from the Caribbean into Florida shortly after the beginning of prohibition. One encounter with the Coast Guard shortly thereafter stopped McCoy from completing runs on his own. The innovative McCoy set up a network of smaller ships that would meet his boat just outside U.S. waters and carry his supplies into the country.

Speakeasies were underground bars that discreetly served patrons liquor, often including food service, live bands and shows. The term speakeasy is said to come from bartenders telling patrons to “speak easy” when ordering so as not to be overheard some 30 years before prohibition. Speakeasies were often unmarked establishments or were behind or underneath legal businesses. Corruption was rampant during the time and although raids were common, owners would bribe police officers to ignore their business or give them notice of when a raid was planned. While the "speakeasy" was often funded by organized crime and could be very elaborate and upscale, the "blind pig" was a dive for the less desirable drinker.

Probably one of the most popular ideas of the time was that the mob held control of the majority of the illegal liquor trafficking. For the most part this is untrue, although in concentrated areas gangsters did run the liquor racket. Chicago was one of those cities where they did control distribution. At the beginning of prohibition the “Outfit” organized all of the local Chicago gangs and split the city and suburbs into areas, each of which would be controlled by a different gang who would handle the liquor sales within their district.

Underground breweries and distilleries were hidden throughout the city. Beer could easily be produced and distributed to meet the demand of the city but because many liquors require aging the stills in Chicago Heights and on Taylor and Division streets could not produce fast enough and the majority of spirits were smuggled in from Canada. This distribution operation out of Chicago soon reached Milwaukee, Kentucky and Iowa.

The Outfit would sell liquor to the lower gangs at wholesale prices and even though the agreements were meant to be set in stone, corruption was rampant and without the ability to resolve conflicts in the courts they often resorted to violence in retaliation. After Al Capone assumed control of the Outfit in 1925 one of the bloodiest gang wars in history ensued.

While prohibition was originally intended to reduce beer consumption in particular, it ended up increasing the consumption of hard liquor. Brewing requires more space both in production and distribution than liquor, making it harder to conceal. This rise in the spirit consumption of the time played a big part in the martini and mixed drink culture that we’re familiar with and “fashion” we associate with the era."

^^^Read this article and you will see that the exact same stuff (especially bolded stuff above) occurs with drug prohibition.

4. It has desensitized law enforcement to breaches of civil rights and the Bill of Rights specifically. More and more SWAT Team raids bust in on people's homes, even without warrants, and then discover "oops you had no drugs". In other words the drug war is a slippery slope that has helped lead to the emergence of the police state we are seeing now.

5. When drugs are legalized, it appears, that just like with alcohol, rates tend to go down, it costs less money, AND violent crime associated with it drops by a huge margin. Example: Portugal

Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME

"At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.
(See the world's most influential people in the 2009 TIME 100.)

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Portugal's case study is of some interest to lawmakers in the U.S., confronted now with the violent overflow of escalating drug gang wars in Mexico. The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use."


These are the primary reasons Paul and many of his supporters are opposed to the war on drugs, not because, as you say, we "all smoke pot".

So are you ready to actually debate or are you just going to hide behind your empty Rush Limbaugh talking points, opinion, slander, and straw men arguments?

Once again, I'm waiting to hand your ass to you in a debate.

Long post that says nothing.......By the way what I said was humor.....You should find yours. Most of Pauls support hell of libertarians support comes form its lenient view of drugs and hookers. This is obvious from the fact that so many liberals follow Paul or the libertarian cause....Even though if they ever put down the bong they would notice they dont have much in common with them.

Paulbots are mostly young kids who think Pot solves the worlds problem....I mean if we all just smoked a joint and fucked a hooker we wouldnt have war.....Like dictators would disappear if you had the right weed......It is hippie bullshit. The main difference is that Paul breeds his hippie hate and says that none should pay for anything.....Like defense or police or health department or education.......So in the end if Paul had hos way we would have a bunch of stupid people screwing everything that walked and to stoned to care and having abortions every other day.....By the way because he is a OBGYN does not mean he is pro-life cause those are the doctors that do the abortions.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

says that none should pay for anything.....Like defense or police or health department or education

Is Paul for NO spending or for what he considers resonsible spending?
During the debates he stresses the later.
Are you of the opnion he was being a phony during the debates?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Is Paul for NO spending or for what he considers resonsible spending?
During the debates he stresses the later.
Are you of the opnion he was being a phony during the debates?

Why dont you go educate yourself about him?????Good lord man actually look him up. My dislike for the man is mostly about his rabid fanboys and foreign policy then about his economics....He is dead right 90% of the time about spending.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Why dont you go educate yourself about him?????Good lord man actually look him up. My dislike for the man is mostly about his rabid fanboys and foreign policy then about his economics....He is dead right 90% of the time about spending.

I watched the debates, read some.
You give the impression that you have been following him for years and you might know something different than the current web sites or debate content.