Ron Paul vs Stephen Baldwin

[jonks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufekh_SwZd0

Looks like RP wins on every single point. Granted, Baldwin isn't a brain trust, but I don't see how anyone making his arguments even in a more articulate manner trumps the common sense benefits of legalization, and overcomes the blatantly obvious statutory hypocrisy vis a vis alcohol, tobacco, etc.

FWIW, I don't use any intoxicant but alcohol.

 

[StageLeft]

I personally think it's worth a shot legalizing weed and see what happens. I think it's retarded that some people think it would be ok to legalize all the hard drugs. And comparing them to alcohol is a non-starter. I don't do any drugs or drink at all, fwiw.

I think RP, btw, has no knowledge of this matter if he's never even heard of somebody being pulled over for driving while stoned.

 

[sactoking]

Can't watch at work. From jonks' comment "Baldwin isn't a brain trust, but I don't see how anyone making his arguments even in a more articulate manner trumps the common sense benefits of legalization" I surmise that Barney Rubble is arguing AGAINST legalization and that Ron Paul is arguing for. Is that correct?

If so, that's a big WTF?!? Isn't Stephen Baldwin the poster child for illicit drug use or something?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I personally think it's worth a shot legalizing weed and see what happens. I think it's retarded that some people think it would be ok to legalize all the hard drugs. And comparing them to alcohol is a non-starter. I don't do any drugs or drink at all, fwiw.

I think RP, btw, has no knowledge of this matter if he's never even heard of somebody being pulled over for driving while stoned.

The problem is once you make it legal you can not go back. I am kinda for making weed legal but have not really looked into it.
As for hard drugs they should never be legal. Hell some of the legal Pharm drugs should not even be legal or at least more hard to get.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Can't watch at work. From jonks' comment "Baldwin isn't a brain trust, but I don't see how anyone making his arguments even in a more articulate manner trumps the common sense benefits of legalization" I surmise that Barney Rubble is arguing AGAINST legalization and that Ron Paul is arguing for. Is that correct?

If so, that's a big WTF?!? Isn't Stephen Baldwin the poster child for illicit drug use or something?

He became a born again christan. So hes more of a religious nut job now. Not that he was some really smart upstanding person before.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I personally think it's worth a shot legalizing weed and see what happens. I think it's retarded that some people think it would be ok to legalize all the hard drugs. And comparing them to alcohol is a non-starter. I don't do any drugs or drink at all, fwiw.

I think RP, btw, has no knowledge of this matter if he's never even heard of somebody being pulled over for driving while stoned.

The problem is once you make it legal you can not go back. I am kinda for making weed legal but have not really looked into it.
As for hard drugs they should never be legal. Hell some of the legal Pharm drugs should not even be legal or at least more hard to get.

It was legal. Then they made you have to buy a tax stamp for it. But they wouldn't issue stamps. That was challenged as unconstitutional, and won. Since they couldn't make it taxable but not issue stamps, they just made it illegal.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: sactoking
Can't watch at work. From jonks' comment "Baldwin isn't a brain trust, but I don't see how anyone making his arguments even in a more articulate manner trumps the common sense benefits of legalization" I surmise that Barney Rubble is arguing AGAINST legalization and that Ron Paul is arguing for. Is that correct?

If so, that's a big WTF?!? Isn't Stephen Baldwin the poster child for illicit drug use or something?

He became a born again christan. So hes more of a religious nut job now. Not that he was some really smart upstanding person before.

It was a career decision, just like Kirk Cameron.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Ron Paul keeping it real. People who voted for "change" should of given their vote to Ron Paul, not Obama.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Ron Paul keeping it real. People who voted for "change" should of given their vote to Ron Paul, not Obama.

yeah, but we like having, you know, roads n stuff.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Ron Paul keeping it real. People who voted for "change" should of given their vote to Ron Paul, not Obama.

The only problem is that Ron Paul was running on 'change that nobody likes'. Sure he's for legalizing weed, which is good, but he's also for returning us to the gold standard, which is retarded.

I'm not sure if people know this, but all drugs, including weed and 'hard drugs' we legal in the US until the 20th century. Society did just fine.

What's the point of making them illegal anyway? To keep people from using them? You all know as well as I do that anyone who wants to buy any kind of drug can find the means to do so in a very short period of time. The jail sentences, the organized crime, etc... etc... is a cancer on our society. Legalizing drugs would get rid of all of these things, and it's something I support for ALL drugs, not just weed.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Ron Paul keeping it real. People who voted for "change" should of given their vote to Ron Paul, not Obama.

The only problem is that Ron Paul was running on 'change that nobody likes'. Sure he's for legalizing weed, which is good

You are saying legalizing weed is an example of change everyone likes!?

I knew it, I *am* surrounded by hippies!

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ayabe
It was a career decision, just like Kirk Cameron.

Kirk didn't do it as a career decision.

I'm not sure if people know this, but all drugs, including weed and 'hard drugs' we legal in the US until the 20th century. Society did just fine.

Most of the hard drugs now are fairly new incarnations, at least in their current forms. By the end of the 19th century it was pretty plain to see that cocaine was causing some real issues.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Ron Paul keeping it real. People who voted for "change" should of given their vote to Ron Paul, not Obama.

yeah, but we like having, you know, roads n stuff.

We also like having, you know, crippling debt n stuff.

Look at us, we also have a few more new trillions to add to our debt. Weeeeeee!!

 

[1prophet]

What can the United States do different that can make legalization work when it has or is failing for other countries?

The Experience of Foreign Countries and Drug Legalization

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Ron Paul keeping it real. People who voted for "change" should of given their vote to Ron Paul, not Obama.

yeah, but we like having, you know, roads n stuff.

We also like having, you know, crippling debt n stuff.

Look at us, we also have a few more new trillions to add to our debt. Weeeeeee!!

Bad analogy. We don't like crippling debt, we just recognize right now you have to spend to stimulate. Ron Paul said he'd be fine with just letting everyone who couldn't make it in this economy go bankrupt and start over on the other side. Problem is 20-30%+ unemployment isn't a recipe for social order.

And we like roads.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
What can the United States do different that can make legalization work when it has or is failing for other countries?

The Experience of Foreign Countries and Drug Legalization

Well, for one, they are just looking at mj. That source only shows addictive drugs being a problem.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
What can the United States do different that can make legalization work when it has or is failing for other countries?

The Experience of Foreign Countries and Drug Legalization

It has worked in Portugal......

 

[DarrelSPowers]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: 1prophet
What can the United States do different that can make legalization work when it has or is failing for other countries?

The Experience of Foreign Countries and Drug Legalization

Well, for one, they are just looking at mj. That source only shows addictive drugs being a problem.

Yeah seriously,

and whats with the end of that article there with the "if they say, then you say" crap?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Ron Paul keeping it real. People who voted for "change" should of given their vote to Ron Paul, not Obama.

yeah, but we like having, you know, roads n stuff.

We also like having, you know, crippling debt n stuff.

Look at us, we also have a few more new trillions to add to our debt. Weeeeeee!!

Bad analogy. We don't like crippling debt, we just recognize right now you have to spend to stimulate. Ron Paul said he'd be fine with just letting everyone who couldn't make it in this economy go bankrupt and start over on the other side. Problem is 20-30%+ unemployment isn't a recipe for social order.

And we like roads.

I like roads too, too bad my taxes aren't paying for roads they're paying for AIG executive bonuses.

So given that the choice is not Roads and No Roads but Executive Bonus and No Roads I guess I'll go with Ron Paul.

 

[Lemon law]

Ron Paul vs Steven Baldwin, hardly the thriller from Manilla heavy weight boxing championship of the world.

Pardon me if I yawn, its more like the battle between two pygmies with no political clout.

While I agree that this is a debate with some merit, as long as its confined to just Ron Paul and Steven Baldwin, its only a lot of very limited sound and fury signifying nothing.

I will not hold my breath waiting to see any GOP mainstream support for Ron Paul on this issue, and its going to be even a longer wait for mainstream democrats to embrace the Ron Paul position.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Ron Paul keeping it real. People who voted for "change" should of given their vote to Ron Paul, not Obama.

yeah, but we like having, you know, roads n stuff.

We also like having, you know, crippling debt n stuff.

Look at us, we also have a few more new trillions to add to our debt. Weeeeeee!!

Bad analogy. We don't like crippling debt, we just recognize right now you have to spend to stimulate. Ron Paul said he'd be fine with just letting everyone who couldn't make it in this economy go bankrupt and start over on the other side. Problem is 20-30%+ unemployment isn't a recipe for social order.

And we like roads.

I like roads too, too bad my taxes aren't paying for roads they're paying for AIG executive bonuses.

So given that the choice is not Roads and No Roads but Executive Bonus and No Roads I guess I'll go with Ron Paul.

Positions like that are why RP didn't win anything, because he offers impractical solutions. Did you see anyone in Congress or the WH agree with AIG using the funds for bonuses, or did you see them condemn it can call for punitive measures? Or would you simply have let one of the world's largest insurance company go belly up on the brink of a depression and not given them anything at all as RP would have?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Ron Paul keeping it real. People who voted for "change" should of given their vote to Ron Paul, not Obama.

The only problem is that Ron Paul was running on 'change that nobody likes'. Sure he's for legalizing weed, which is good

You are saying legalizing weed is an example of change everyone likes!?

I knew it, I *am* surrounded by hippies!

While the legalization of marijuana is gaining in popularity, it's not a majority position yet.

I mixed my own opinions in with my assessment of Ron Paul's electoral strategy. Sadly enough, his desire to legalize weed is still part of 'change that nobody likes'.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I personally think it's worth a shot legalizing weed and see what happens. I think it's retarded that some people think it would be ok to legalize all the hard drugs. And comparing them to alcohol is a non-starter. I don't do any drugs or drink at all, fwiw.

I think RP, btw, has no knowledge of this matter if he's never even heard of somebody being pulled over for driving while stoned.

Do you admit that making a drug illegal does not decrease it chances of being used?

If you disagree..Do you care to site evidence to the contrary?

I'm not necessarily advocating legalization of crack for instance, but lets ask the questions about how effective what we are doing is.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: jonks
Positions like that are why RP didn't win anything, because he offers impractical solutions. Did you see anyone in Congress or the WH agree with AIG using the funds for bonuses, or did you see them condemn it can call for punitive measures? Or would you simply have let one of the world's largest insurance company go belly up on the brink of a depression and not given them anything at all as RP would have?

Let them go belly up. Look, how hard is it to see that the Obama admin is just carrying over the same failed system we saw under Bush? We're just trying to re-inflate an economy based on failed economic and monetary policies. That's not change, and it certainly isn't good for the long term health of our country. It's more of the same, it's curing the symptoms rather than the actual disease, and that is exactly how government operates, and why things are so bad. You guys won't know you've bought a lemon until the engine catches fire and the tires fly off.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: jonks
Positions like that are why RP didn't win anything, because he offers impractical solutions. Did you see anyone in Congress or the WH agree with AIG using the funds for bonuses, or did you see them condemn it can call for punitive measures? Or would you simply have let one of the world's largest insurance company go belly up on the brink of a depression and not given them anything at all as RP would have?

Let them go belly up. Look, how hard is it to see that the Obama admin is just carrying over the same failed system we saw under Bush? We're just trying to re-inflate an economy based on failed economic and monetary policies. That's not change, and it certainly isn't good for the long term health of our country. It's more of the same, it's curing the symptoms rather than the actual disease, and that is exactly how government operates, and why things are so bad. You guys won't know you've bought a lemon until the engine catches fire and the tires fly off.

Or we can take the sane route, and not do that. Again, this is why Ron Paul couldn't get more that a tiny percentage of the vote even in the political party most amenable to his beliefs. His solutions (like most libertarian solutions sadly enough) are poorly thought out and don't take into account the long term consequences of his actions. The only reason they persist at all is that no country has been irresponsible enough to allow a libertarian to gain enough power to implement these principles. Uncoupled from the burden of actually having to run anything, it's very easy to lob impractical solutions that sound good to a select group.