Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHY I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!
a sick twisted mind... ^ | 01/31/2012 | RaceBannon

Posted on 01/31/2012 3:54:11 AM PST by RaceBannon

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-75 last
To: All

IOW voting for Ron Paul is a vote for Romney.

congrats to all those useful idiots.

kook paul has ZERO, chance of winning the nomination.

NONE

This is a primary and votes have to go to knocking out romney. Santorum and Paul are wasted PRIMARY votes.

Vote tactical not emotional.


51 posted on 01/31/2012 8:26:05 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
I am going to vote for Ron Paul.

Do your reasons "why" reconcile with your objectives?

Perhaps I should have asked what your objective is. My objective is to vote for the most Conservative candidate who can defeat Obama, not to vote for the most Conservative candidate.

I will also vote for Ron Paul if he becomes the Republican candidate but not if he runs against the Republican candidate.

52 posted on 01/31/2012 9:02:07 AM PST by MosesKnows (Love many, Trust few, and always paddle your own canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Turtlepower
I certainally hope everyone on this forum votes straight party ticket regardless of the primary outcome like me.

It's a tough primary and feeling are get hurt on all sides and that's a shame.

We can only pray our candidate's VP choice is more Conservative than they are.

53 posted on 01/31/2012 9:41:41 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
I actually am going to vote for Ron Paul. For Real! Otherwise I'd be voting for Romney in Virginia. I hope Ron Paul crushes Romney in Virginia. It would be a major embarrassment.

We aren't allowed write in’s.

54 posted on 01/31/2012 9:46:53 AM PST by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Ron Paul is acceptably right about everything except foreign policy. Unfortunately he is fatally wrong about foreign policy. Too bad too because he has the best economic and second amendment positions since the Founders. If only he weren’t sooo wrong on foreign policy.


55 posted on 01/31/2012 10:21:06 AM PST by muir_redwoods (No wonder this administration favors abortion; everything they have done is an abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martian622

I am no fan of Paul based on his foreign policy, but I agree this is low. I personally support decriminalization - I mean what has the war on drugs really achieved?


56 posted on 01/31/2012 11:50:23 AM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote
It's not that simple as Paulites love to make it. It is always “Ron is the REAL conservative” and those who dare criticize are Neocons, Bush supporters. Sorry, but reality is much more complex. There are many of us who are disgusted with the Bush years, but also are not about to embrace anarchism in reaction.
57 posted on 01/31/2012 11:53:33 AM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Eva
His supporters there must really be a different lot than the ones I have met here.

I think a look beyond the supporters used to Alinsky Ron Paul would reveal that it is in fact a minor concern among most of his supporters, whereas Liberty is a major concern.

Keep in mind it is not the Liberty to do drugs and lay around wasted that the supporters I have talked with are concerned about--that will be self correcting for those who do the hard stuff in relatively short order.

It is instead the loss of Rights in practice, to be secure in one's papers, posessions, and person, the right to be free of unreasonable search and siezure, the right to travel unmolested by agents of the government in the absence of committing a crime, etc. which are primary concerns, losses which the government has used the 'war on drugs' as an excuse for usurpation.

Similarly, the violence during prohibition was used to justify the landmark infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (the NFA of '34--even after the repeal), and subsequent infringements have been rationalized because of violence which is commonly related to the prohibition on drugs.

These same drugs, such as were in existence , were known and used without prescription nor penalty, save that which stemmed from their abuse, prior to prohibition. Again, the problem was self-limiting, and additionally, there was nothing for youth to rebel against in their use exccept on a case-by-case basis with their parents instead of 'establishment society' as a whole.

I think if you look beyond the street freaks who get the column inches and airtime, you will find there is a significant and overwhelming number of people who support Ron Paul for his economic ideas, especially the proposal to do away with oppressive and redundant departments in the Federal Government, and reduce the Federal Budget significantly.

Such austerity measures go hand in hand with the Federal mandates in the Constitution: the power to regulate what any willing adult puts in their body, be it of animal, vegetable, mineral, or chemical origins, is not one of the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. The power to establish and mandate 'education' standards (down to minutiae of curriculae), the power to regulate firearms purchases, the power to eavesdrop on American Citizens without a warrant, the power to grope passengers at the airport, and tell you you can't fill in the mudhole in your back yard, are all not present in the Constitution, whereas the mandate to secure our borders is.

These people can readily tell you which item on the list is NOT being done, and it is the only one which is a designated task of the Federal Governmaent.

What is being sold as wild-eyed "libertarianism" is so often just an advocation of return to the Constitution's original intent.

Now, that's going to gore some oxen, frankly because it will eliminate a lot of Government Jobs, and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in the Public Employees' Locals are going to like that, nor the people who milk student loan programs, government housing guarantees, Social Security (I know we paid for it, but it isn't in the Constitution), Medicare, Welfare, etc., because there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to administer these programs, and especially not at the public expense.

Oddly, the last poll I saw in this state had Ron Paul at 39%, well ahead of Romney, Newt, or Santorum. I really can't attest to its accuracy, one way or the other, but that was a bit of an eye opener.

I can guarantee the people in my area are generally hard working (oil patch), and are subject to random drug tests as a condition of employment, and many are veterans who came here to work in the patch.

Sorry to bust the popular bubble, but this just doesn't fit the "wackadoodle" profile which is so often presented as the 'typical' Ron Paul supporter.

Many of these voters are in their 20s, (many are over 50, too)and most of them thank God daily that they are in a place where there is a job to be had, and often they came from somewhere there isn't one. Their chief concern is that when the boom slows down, what then?

Where is the America they are going to raise their children (if they aren't doing so already) going, and between inflation and boom town prices, they've seen their dollar dwindle in value, and they know it.

So often, it is fiscal policy which concerns them the most, (with some even more than lost Liberty), especially stopping and reversing the unsustainable 'progress' made under the current administration.

They often realize we can't just slow down, we can't just stop, we have to back up because the economy is crumbling--not just here, but worldwide.

So, there are, as always, the attention grabbing, colorful few who will get the majority of the media attention, and I have noticed a tendency even here to pick and choose what part of the MSM people will believe if it suits their purposes.

The druggie/troofer/stormfront/code pink "supporters" are really in the minority, otherwise, no Republican would stand a chance. They just get a disproportionate amount of airtime and exposure.

58 posted on 01/31/2012 2:48:14 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

The point is that for the Paulies, this is their most important issue and it’s not for anyone who thinks that Ron Paul is a bit of a nut. He has some really good points, but he just goes off the wall on others, right down there with Cynthia McKinney.

Yet, Paulies stick right with him because he is good on “their issues”. Drug legalization is to the Paulies, what abortion is the social conservatives, and that’s just not right.


59 posted on 01/31/2012 3:17:17 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee

I ask myself, what has the War on Poverty, War on Drugs and War on Terror achieved? Unless I’m mistaken, they’ve given us more of them.


60 posted on 01/31/2012 3:25:36 PM PST by martian622 (The Revolution is being televised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: martian622

Don’t even bother. When Snoop Dogg comes out in support of someone, its not because of his stand on the Fed.


61 posted on 01/31/2012 3:27:48 PM PST by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe; Responsibility2nd
It's funny how druggie losers always have a list to use to prevent law enforcement from trying to do their job and blame their efforts instead of the actual drug usage that led to the law enforcement efforts

So, lets make our own list, eh?

DRUG USE has led to:

premature deaths in users

premature deaths in those around the users due to the actions of those on drugs

loss of motor control and injuries caused by drug use

loss of memory, causing work accidents and reduced productivity

loss of coherent thinking in life, leading to people actually believing immorality is the answer to the law instead of recognizing people do NOT do good on their own, but will degrade themselves if allowed to

loss of coherent thinking in a person's future, whether it be lifestyle, a mate, or whether to go to the bathroom or go to Walmart...it is all the same, if you are using drugs, you aint thinking straight

Causing a person to chase women all the time instead of go to college free

Causing a person to allow themselves to be used as a sex toy in exchange for free drugs, ruining their reputation

causing a person to get sexually transmitted diseases because of their licentious lifestyle because they became drug users and associated only with those who did drugs

causing a person to unplug their television while their children are watching it so they can pawn it for drug money

causing a person to forget some critical step in a complex task causing an aircraft to crash, or a train to crash, or an automobile to crash

causing a person to lose self control and make a fool out of themselves in social situations at inopportune times causing that person to be a social outcast

Now, this list Can go on, but remember something: NOT ONCE did I mention anything that had to do with drugs being illegal

all these things happened because someone did drugs. NOT because they broke the law, not because they were in jail, but because they did drugs

BECAUSE THEY DID DRUGS and BECAUSE THEY DID DRUGS ALONE.

The RONULANS all make the strawman argument about legalization as being some cure.

People going to jail or people being hurt because of the rare occasions of Police mistakes are outweighed by a factor of millions when all you consider is the people who are harmed by the simple use of illegal drugs

The greatest loss America faces now, is the number of adult democrats due to marijuana useage as a teen or college age person.

i mean that, too

Marijuana use leads a person to be a Marxist or a Libertarian on moral issues, and never a Conservative.

62 posted on 01/31/2012 3:46:05 PM PST by RaceBannon (Ron Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: martian622; Sam Gamgee

and I ask myself, since the war on drugs started, there had to be a drug problem before it started, right?

I mean, there was a REASON it started, right?

So, since the very presence of drugs is what the problem is, and the law is trying to prevent the presence of drugs, how is legalizing that which caused the social problems to begin with going to help??


63 posted on 01/31/2012 3:49:49 PM PST by RaceBannon (Ron Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

My main worry is that our country will be destroyed by debt. We are at a turning point, I think we passed 100% of GDP. And we’ve de-industrialized so we can’t properly grow our way out.

If we don’t get our financial house in order none of the rest will matter. So that is a significant concern.

I also don’t want this to become the soviet states of america. Tyrannies consist of central planners controlling every aspect of your lives - we are getting close to this.

As for the defense of the United States - I sleep very well at night knowing we have over 8,000 nuclear warheads ready to go after anyone who attacks us. Now that is real defense!

What I want is the free country I remember. When cops were friendly local guys and not militarized, hair trigger, bullies.

When not every single thing broke some federal law and regulation. When we declared our wars - and then won them within a few years.

The more and more I look at it, it come down to the candidate who is for the constitution, states rights, US sovereignty and fiscal responsibility.

I would like very much to live in a free country again, not one that has become so cowardly that we are afraid of our own shadows and we have to be ‘protected’ by TSA, EPA, BATF goon squads.

Also, I do know few people who plan to vote for Ron Paul - none of them use drugs. Most of them are real tough nut, good old boys who I’d trust my life to. One of them is the daughter of an Army Colonel and the head of her local Republican Women’s Committee and loved George Bush more than you can imagine. So the stereotype hasn’t played out as far as the people I know.

I’d certainly rather have RP as opposed to Romney!


64 posted on 01/31/2012 4:00:29 PM PST by LibertyLA (fighting libtards and other giant government enablers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Very well said.

(applause)

The pro-drug liberals on this site are sickening. I notice they never have the stones to take this liberaltarian pro-Paul crapola on main-stream threads in direct opposition to Jim Robinson’s express directives.

These Paultards are like cockroaches. They scurry around in the dark. Yet, when they screw up and say too much - they get the zot.

I destest libs. Libertarians and Liberals. (same thing)


65 posted on 01/31/2012 4:31:41 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (Newt or else. What part of "Join or Die" don't you understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
It's funny how druggie losers always have a list to use to prevent law enforcement from trying to do their job and blame their efforts instead of the actual drug usage that led to the law enforcement efforts

Which "legitimate law enforcement effort'?

Legalize that crap, and the law enforcement folks can go after thieves and murderers and child molesters, and maybe even some criminals in the stinking government.

Funny how 'everyone' who thinks people who were against prohibition were drunken sots, p*ssing their pants on the sidewalk, or that someone who has a list is a "druggie loser".

There isn't too much on your list that couldn't be blamed on alcohol, is there?

Let's try that out, shall we?

DRUG ALCOHOL USE has led to:

premature deaths in users

premature deaths in those around the users due to the actions of those on drugs alcohol

loss of motor control and injuries caused by drug alcohol use

loss of memory, causing work accidents and reduced productivity

loss of coherent thinking in life, leading to people actually believing immorality is the answer to the law instead of recognizing people do NOT do good on their own, but will degrade themselves if allowed to

loss of coherent thinking in a person's future, whether it be lifestyle, a mate, or whether to go to the bathroom or go to Walmart...it is all the same, if you are using drugs drinking, you aint thinking straight

Causing a person to chase women all the time instead of go to college free (and here I thought puberty was sufficient)

Causing a person to allow themselves to be used as a sex toy in exchange for free drugs drinks, ruining their reputation

causing a person to get sexually transmitted diseases because of their licentious lifestyle because they became drug users alcoholics and associated only with those who did drugs drank

causing a person to unplug their television while their children are watching it so they can pawn it for drug beer money

causing a person to forget some critical step in a complex task causing an aircraft to crash, or a train to crash, or an automobile to crash

causing a person to lose self control and make a fool out of themselves in social situations at inopportune times causing that person to be a social outcast

Maybe we should try that Prohibition crap again, too?

Every step along either road is a conscious choice by the person using their substance of preference.

Self-destructive people will manage to be self-destructive, no matter what, laws or no laws, and they are doing a fine job of it.

Since the drug problem is the result of determined self-destructive people who are (maybe you noticed) IGNORING the law anyway, maybe the rest of us would like to be able to carry enough cash across a state line to dicker on equipment or a car without worrying about being pulled over and having it taken from us on the alleged presumption it is 'drug money'.

Maybe you don't value your liberty as much as your false security, or your magnanimous sense of 'saving' the druggies from themselves (a losing proposition most of the time--I know, I spent a decade and my best shot at retirement trying to save just one), or maybe you are making a little on the side over it being prohibited.

So here's another list backatcha, from a guy who runs ten or more ten million dollar projects a year and makes a decent six figure income doing it (neither 'druggie' nor 'loser').

Is it the 'job' of law enforcement to search premises, people, and effects without a warrant? (see the 4th Amendment).

Is it the job of Law enforcement to kick doors in, shoot the dog, and check the address later?

Is it the job of law enforcement to take money from people who have not been charged with a crime-- nor ever are--under the presumption that they are guilty of a drug crime they are often not even charged with?

If you cannot see the erosion of the Rights of Americans done in the name of the War on Drugs, you either are far younger than this great-grandpa, or you just haven't been paying attention.

Some of my friends have died protecting the Rights you would throw on the fire along with billions of dollars annually to protect the self-destructive from themselves, a battle that is a losing battle at best.

The only greater debacle in American History is the War on Poverty.

In the meantime, the Cartels control our southern border, armed with money that has never been taxed, and corrupting many of those who would have otherwise taken action against them. Namely, our own government which is supposed to not only be protecting American soverignty, but our Constitutional Rights.

The rest of us, those who do not do drugs are still paying for the failures, not just in extraconstitutional social programs, but with our Liberty as well.

66 posted on 01/31/2012 5:30:37 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Actually, the people I speak with see the War on Drugs as just one more unconstitutional rathole we pour blood and treasure into. Their primary concern is the economy, and the reduction of the size of government at the Federal level. Hammer that monster back into its Constitutional constraints, and most of the economic problems would be solved--along with some of the social ones.

The flip side of the War on drugs, is that once it is allowed that the Federal Government has the power to regulate what adults willingly consume (such as 'illegal' drugs), it is a short hop to say it has the lawful power to regulate what you willingly eat or drink, what medicines or herbal supplements you take, whether or not you consume tobacco, how much salt you consume, your total caloric intake, whether you are allowed to inhale the fumes from essential oils, use bath salts, etc., without limit, because you already granted them that power when you said it was OK to regulate weeds and their alkaloids or derrivatives (because someone else was using them).

So, if some bunch of latter day hippies decides to dump the seeds out of their grass on your farm, you could lose the place for 'manufacturing a controlled substance'.

Sheesh! Might as well sell raw milk.

But if you want to be hung up on just this one issue, you will never understand the Ron Paul supporters, who would be happy to see the Department of Education, the EPA, DHS, and other agencies extinct and others severely downsized.

I think it is odd to be called a 'liberal' (I assume that wasn't in the Jeffersonian sense) by those who would not see that the Federal Government is incredibly out of its Constitutional bounds, and getting worse at an accelerating pace.

With the deals cut in Fast and Furious selling firearms to straw buyers who were sure to deliver them to Drug Cartels, and the DEA laundering drug money supposedly as part of a sting operation which never really stung anyone, the potential for corruption is self-evident, those at the highest levels who are supposed to be enforcing these laws are breaking them, and that can only mean someone is making money.

Ditto on border enforcement: why hasn't the Southern Border been closed? Eisenhower (yep, IKE) had "Operation Wetback", and since then, what?

No way I won't believe someone was making big bucks on Acapulco Gold or Panama Red before cocaine became popular (now meth, 'cause the cooks just can't get cold medicine like they used to--and neither can you!).

Is that working?

In a word, NO.

But keep doing the same thing over and over. Maybe next time.

Right.

67 posted on 01/31/2012 5:58:39 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Yup. I think the reason it started was to create the problem and offer the solution on the federal scale along with corrupting society. Just like alcohol, it seems that when you ban a substance, criminals are turned into wealthy kings who end-up getting their people into public office. What’s the only logical solution to rid ourselves of illegal drugs and the social problems it feeds into? Execution of users and sellers. Anything less only feeds government corruption as we blatantly see now on every level. How else can we be safe and secure in our societal structuring?


68 posted on 01/31/2012 6:02:07 PM PST by martian622 (The Revolution is being televised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Turtlepower
Why are you singling out Paul followers for not supporting the eventual GOP nominee?

LOL! (Saul Alinsky).

69 posted on 01/31/2012 6:08:40 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
IOW voting for Ron Paul is a vote for Romney.

Not in Virginia it isn't--they are the two on the primary ballot, and there are NO write-ins.

70 posted on 01/31/2012 6:16:47 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

I think for one ending incarceration of drug users will be one step to justice.

Ask yourself what created the mafia. It was the prohibition of alcohol. Drugs prohibition gave rise to drug empires. If we stopped making it illegal the black market would end.


71 posted on 02/01/2012 2:28:09 PM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee

Oh, Pulleze, the Mafia was created by criminals who just hung out together

They started it on prostitution, too

loan sharking

gambling

protection rackets

If what you said was true, there would BE no mafia anymore


72 posted on 02/01/2012 3:18:36 PM PST by RaceBannon (Ron Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; All

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/


73 posted on 02/01/2012 6:36:00 PM PST by RaceBannon (Ron Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martian622

So is it okay if Ron Paul says he’s going to leave slavery up to the states too? Fundamental moral crimes such as allowing harmful, addictive drugs to be produced and distributed should not be an optional matter for anyone living in the UNITED States.


74 posted on 03/01/2012 12:29:14 AM PST by JediJones (Watch "Gingrich to Michigan: Change or Die" on YouTube. Best Speech Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
So is it okay if Ron Paul says he’s going to leave slavery up to the states too? If you feel the need for involvement in slavery, why not go somewhere it's supported now, like Africa or the Muslim ME.

Fundamental moral crimes such as allowing harmful, addictive drugs to be produced and distributed should not be an optional matter for anyone living in the UNITED States. How you gonna stop em? Execution is the final solution it seems.

75 posted on 03/01/2012 3:21:52 PM PST by martian622 (The Revolution is being televised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-75 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson