Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What is so appealing about Ron Paul to young voters?
FOX News ^ | 1/31/12 | Karin Agness

Posted on 01/31/2012 12:00:06 PM PST by presidio9

The first primaries of 2012 are complete, but the fight over the proper role of government continues. The question before GOP primary voters is who best reflects their own answer to that question, and then, who is best suited to make that case to the American people?

A clear winner has yet to emerge, but there is little question about who has captured the loyalty of young Republican voters on this issue. Although finishing fourth overall, Ron Paul once again won the youth vote in South Carolina, winning 31% of ages 18-29, compared to Newt Gingrich who won 28%. Paul’s appeal, or more accurately, the appeal of Paul’s limited government message, is a key story to emerge from the Republican primaries.

There’s no mistaking the trend.

Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary, getting approximately 39% of the total vote. Ron Paul finished second with 23%, Jon Huntsman finished third with 17%, and Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum each won about 9% of the vote.

Yet young voters would have picked a different winner. According to Fox News exit polls, in New Hampshire, Paul won nearly half (46%) of the votes of people ages 18-29, while Romney won second place with just 26%.

Paul also won the youth vote in Iowa. In the Hawkeye State almost half (48%) of the Republican caucus goers ages 18-29 supported Paul, compared to 23% for the otherwise victorious Santorum, and 14% for Romney.

What is so appealing about Paul to young voters? One answer is that Paul has been the most outspoken candidate defending the importance of free enterprise and the limited role of government. And he has had a

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: apaulling; apaulogia; apaulogist; bongbrigade; dope; drugs; paul; ronpaul; whytheycallitdope; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-246 last
To: SoldierDad
It’s clear that this “person” is drug-addled.

Your cowardly ad hominem sums up your position and your character.

201 posted on 02/01/2012 2:54:16 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars every year - some "token." How much of our money would you like to spend on your jihad?

We've been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for how long now? I'd say that the billions, or is it now trillions, we've spent fighting a token war in those two countries, and around the world, provides evidence to the contrary that token wars don't cost much in the way of money. Try again retard.

Try answering the question: How much of our money would you like to spend?

202 posted on 02/01/2012 2:56:42 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I love smoking the weed. Looove, it. BUT Ron Paul needs to go home. And, sorry, my humble O, but Santorum does too.

I wouldn't mind if weed was legalized, and for conservative reasons...basically dedicating LE to more vital roles, an industry to rival big tobacco and all the jobs created, and the farms everywhere can benefit one way or the other, it grows in all 50 states. You know all the medical, biodiesel and fiber uses. It would also take away about half the income from these Mex drug gangs if we went domestic. That's kind of a big deal.

Anyway. If someone said we'd have twenty years of conservative leadership but pot laws would remain the same, that's great...the country is more important than my weed. I'll still be smokin' though. BTW, 50yo, own my own biz, semi retired on a sailboat, conservative guy.

Go Newt!

203 posted on 02/01/2012 3:13:18 PM PST by AnTiw1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnTiw1

Ditto....I always loved it but I do without it unless I know someone who has it, then I enjoy(:


204 posted on 02/01/2012 3:15:13 PM PST by geege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: geege

That’s the way I am...catch as catch can. Hunting and foraging...lol...and all my friends know that debts are payable in “green” or the other “green” ;^)


205 posted on 02/01/2012 3:32:23 PM PST by AnTiw1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: AnTiw1

Of course....and always a friend with weed is a friend indeed!!!


206 posted on 02/01/2012 3:34:25 PM PST by geege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Back in the early days of Free Republic, the site was infested with Libertarians wanting to stand on soap boxes claiming how pure they were because of “principal”...they called the police jack-booted thugs...they spewed the childish clap trap that there was “no difference” between the two major political parties...and on and on and on...

They finally took their little phone booth sized convention of self appointed saviours of the republic and moved to other web sites (for the most part).

I am not going to waste time and band width on dumb back and forth about legalization of drugs...been there..am not wasting time on it any more....we have far more important and pressing issues that the silly crap about how the war on drugs is robbing us of freedoms.

Ron Paul is a nut...believes goofy conspiracy crap about Bush and 9-11...grossly misreads the Constitution regarding our national defense...blindly believes that Iran is not going to be a nuclear threat...and on and on...and no amount of time wasting Libertarian over-the-top generalizations will ever change my mind.


207 posted on 02/01/2012 3:46:47 PM PST by Moby Grape (Formerly Impeach the Boy...name change necessary after the Marxist won)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“”Collective property” is a potentially dangerous notion; I look forward to your fleshing out this thought.”

I’d be happy to, JustSayNoToNannies.

The entire United States is the collective psychological property of all United States citizens. It’s about sovereignty where all the people recognize these united states as our property. It’s how nations are created.

This way, if an enemy attacks New York City, we recognize it as an attack against the entire property known as these united states and the citizens who occupy that land.

If you disagree with that notion, maybe you’d like to see the people on 5th Avenue raise an army and go get the attackers after 9-11, while everyone else ignores the attack.

The collective of a nation is defined as “belonging or relating to all the members of a group.”

I realize you wanted to play juvenile libertarian mind games because I used the word “collective.”

The F’n commies don’t own that word. I do.


208 posted on 02/01/2012 4:25:39 PM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

Good answer!


209 posted on 02/01/2012 4:53:53 PM PST by Eaker (Remember, the enemy tends to wise up at the least convenient moments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: edwords
Paul will still be in the race the day after Gingrich drops out and endorses Romney.

Thanks, I needed the laugh!

210 posted on 02/01/2012 4:59:47 PM PST by Eaker (Remember, the enemy tends to wise up at the least convenient moments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kennard
If those kids didn't believe in limited government, they would be manning the ramparts with the Occupiers.

They are.

The photo below was taken right outside of Zuccotti Park in October of 2011.



211 posted on 02/01/2012 5:11:36 PM PST by Eaker (Remember, the enemy tends to wise up at the least convenient moments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Just say no dude....


212 posted on 02/01/2012 7:33:48 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Might just be the degree to which all the other candidates suck.


213 posted on 02/01/2012 7:52:20 PM PST by mangonc2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Cowardly? Since I posted my comment on the thread, and didn't make it as a private reply, how exactly would you characterize that as cowardly? You read the comment. I knew you would read the comment. I'm quite frankly not impressed by you or in fear of your opinion of me. Ad hominen? I don't think so. Your position is unsubstantiated with respect to legalization being a conservative value - it is not, I state yet again. The ONLY reason for wanting legalization of dangerous recreational drugs is so that they can be used. Since you have so ardently taken the position you have, I can only assume you are drug addled. Cowardly? Not even in the slightest.

On another note, since you earlier brought it up, the issue of a "token" war on drugs being nonsense in your view - I give you Korea, Vietnam, and now the War on Terror. All three were and have been token wars. Now, do me a favor, and go choke on your meth pipe.

214 posted on 02/02/2012 8:47:33 AM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

He called me a coward for my post to you regarding his being drug addled. I guess, simply because I didn’t “ping” him. He failed to realize, apparently, that if I were a coward I would simply have made a private reply to you instead of a comment where anyone could read what I wrote. Paranoia is one of the halmarks of someone who abuses drugs.


215 posted on 02/02/2012 10:36:10 AM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Moby Grape
I am not going to waste time and band width on dumb back and forth about legalization of drugs

Of course not - you're just going to waste time and band width smearing all young Paul supporters. Buh-bye.

216 posted on 02/02/2012 12:04:04 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave; Eaker
Let’s raise the level of discussion here on FR and you and me engage in a good debate.

I was involved in the libertarian party back in the 1990s and helped develop and promote the private property tenets of libertarianism as laid out by the Cato Instititute.

Cato published a well-developed treatise on the concept of private property, where it came from and how to defend private property when confronted.

I don’t think Ron Paul has a clue about the tenets of private property. I seriously question whether Paul is a libertarian. I base my opinion about Paul on the fact that he doesn’t recognize the United States, collectively, as the private property of the citizens of these united states.

”Collective property” is a potentially dangerous notion; I look forward to your fleshing out this thought.

I’d be happy to, JustSayNoToNannies.

The entire United States is the collective psychological property of all United States citizens. It’s about sovereignty where all the people recognize these united states as our property. It’s how nations are created.

This way, if an enemy attacks New York City, we recognize it as an attack against the entire property known as these united states and the citizens who occupy that land.

I'm guessing that Cato's well-developed treatise doesn't say one word about this sort of "property."

If you disagree with that notion, maybe you’d like to see the people on 5th Avenue raise an army and go get the attackers after 9-11, while everyone else ignores the attack.

The collective of a nation is defined as “belonging or relating to all the members of a group.”

I disagree with calling it "property," psychological or otherwise - but I approve of a sense of national unity. What has Paul said that makes you think he’d like to see the people on 5th Avenue raise an army and go get the attackers after 9-11, while everyone else ignores the attack?

I realize you wanted to play juvenile libertarian mind games

Ad hominems and pretensions to mind-reading - that's your idea of how to "raise the level of discussion"?

217 posted on 02/02/2012 12:20:16 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
It’s clear that this “person” is drug-addled.

Your cowardly ad hominem sums up your position and your character.

Cowardly? Since I posted my comment on the thread, and didn't make it as a private reply, how exactly would you characterize that as cowardly? You read the comment. I knew you would read the comment.

And yet you didn't post it to me.

I'm quite frankly not impressed by you or in fear of your opinion of me.

<yawn>

Ad hominen? I don't think so. Your position is unsubstantiated with respect to legalization being a conservative value - it is not, I state yet again. The ONLY reason for wanting legalization of dangerous recreational drugs is so that they can be used.

Obviously wrong - here are several reasons I posted in this thread:

Since you have so ardently taken the position you have, I can only assume you are drug addled. Cowardly? Not even in the slightest.

On another note, since you earlier brought it up, the issue of a "token" war on drugs being nonsense in your view - I give you Korea, Vietnam, and now the War on Terror. All three were and have been token wars.

I ask for the third time: How much more than the current tens of billions of taxpayer dollars every year would you like to spend on a real War On Drugs?

Now, do me a favor, and go choke on your meth pipe.

218 posted on 02/02/2012 12:39:15 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
Drug legalization is NOT a conservative idea.

Of course it is - just like opposition to alcohol Prohibition was a conservative idea. Drug criminalization, like Prohibition before it, is "progressive" social engineering that has succeeded only in enriching criminals.

I state, emphatically, having been a conservative for the past 34 years, and after having read a great deal of books written by a great many conservative leaders, LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE VALUE.

What did those books say about the conservatism of opposing Prohibition? About utopian social engineering such as attempting to eradicate through government force the millenia-old pursuit of altered mental states? About the law of unintended consequences, as illustrated by drug criminalization's inflating drug profits and channeling them into criminal hands?

219 posted on 02/02/2012 12:55:02 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
You just don't appreciate the Conservative principle of chemically altering your mental state for personal enjoyment.

Yeah, that's the ticket...

Everybody must get stoned to be a good conservative.

220 posted on 02/02/2012 2:33:51 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
•"if the people decide to get involved in anything other than violations of rights, they've gone farther than they have a right to do." post #198

So, it is your position that fetuses have no rights against exposure to the toxins of recreations drugs. Got it. You're pro-abortion. Got it.

221 posted on 02/02/2012 2:35:22 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

OMG, you are so obtuse.


222 posted on 02/02/2012 2:36:14 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
You just don't appreciate the Conservative principle of chemically altering your mental state for personal enjoyment.

Conservatives don't drink alcohol?

223 posted on 02/02/2012 2:44:36 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
What did those books say about the conservatism of opposing Prohibition? About utopian social engineering such as attempting to eradicate through government force the millenia-old pursuit of altered mental states? About the law of unintended consequences, as illustrated by drug criminalization's inflating drug profits and channeling them into criminal hands?

OMG, you are so obtuse.

That's what all those books said?

224 posted on 02/02/2012 2:45:58 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
"if the people decide to get involved in anything other than violations of rights, they've gone farther than they have a right to do." post #198

So, it is your position that fetuses have no rights against exposure to the toxins of recreations drugs.

How shall we defend their rights against exposure to the toxin alcohol? By banning it?

225 posted on 02/02/2012 2:47:29 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
All the time.

Apples and oranges compared to LSD, heroin, coke etc.

We straights know exactly the implication, what "altered mental states" points to in common usage, illicit drug use. Druggies use that term, live for that concept.

You really dont talk about "altered mental states" when having a Budweiser.

Common sense goes a long way.

Why Paulitards fail.

And why Conservatives have never supported the idea of drug legalization, just off the reservation libertarians and addicts.

226 posted on 02/02/2012 2:59:52 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
You just don't appreciate the Conservative principle of chemically altering your mental state for personal enjoyment.

Conservatives don't drink alcohol?

All the time.

Apples and oranges compared to LSD, heroin, coke etc.

We straights know exactly the implication, what "altered mental states" points to in common usage, illicit drug use. Druggies use that term, live for that concept.

You really dont talk about "altered mental states" when having a Budweiser.

But you get one nonetheless. Is that not a conservative thing to do?

227 posted on 02/02/2012 3:03:59 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22; JustSayNoToNannies
I left off...

Please now regal me with your quaint intellectual sounding retort, that is one of my favorite things from Paulitards, that posturing and such.

Use to see that in College to with a lot of pot smoking and other mind altering drug user types. They always had “intellectual” rationals for using drugs.

Always amused me because they could quote Shakespeare flawlessly but everyone around would simple be thinking “hey the pothead actually got through it."

228 posted on 02/02/2012 3:06:13 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
You don't disappoint.

Good luck with that Alcohol / Heroin equivalence argument thing bro, its been tried before but maybe you'll pull it off, folks are getting dumber in general.

Keep it between the rails and don't let the man find your stash.

Peace out dude...

229 posted on 02/02/2012 3:12:38 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Your time has expired... your generation and ideas have destroyed America.

Face the failure that you leave to your children's, children's children.

Step aside, here comes the next generation!

And of course, have another drink!

230 posted on 02/02/2012 3:43:18 PM PST by Afronaut (It's 1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

He’s the only candidate telling the truth about the unsustainability of big government and the welfare state. The rest are either denying or downplaying it.


231 posted on 02/02/2012 4:23:19 PM PST by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
He’s the only candidate telling the truth about the unsustainability of big government and the welfare state. The rest are either denying or downplaying it.

True indeed, but I don't think that is his principal appeal to the young people forming the bulk of his support. Still, it's a good thing they're listening to him, as he might correct much of what they learned at institutes of higher brainwashing.

232 posted on 02/02/2012 4:35:23 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
You just don't appreciate the Conservative principle of chemically altering your mental state for personal enjoyment.

Conservatives don't drink alcohol?

All the time.

Apples and oranges compared to LSD, heroin, coke etc.

We straights know exactly the implication, what "altered mental states" points to in common usage, illicit drug use. Druggies use that term, live for that concept.

You really dont talk about "altered mental states" when having a Budweiser.

But you get one nonetheless. Is that not a conservative thing to do?

Good luck with that Alcohol / Heroin equivalence argument

I've made no such argument, but merely pointed out that alcohol, regardless of the words one uses, chemically alters one's mental state for personal enjoyment. You implied that such alteration was not a conservative thing to do - so do you stand by the logical implication of your claim, namely that drinking enough alcohol to feel an effect ("relaxing" or "unwinding") is not a conservative thing to do?

233 posted on 02/03/2012 8:28:25 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Dude, you are making the same argument over and over.

Really lay off the whatever your wackado drug of choice is.

234 posted on 02/03/2012 10:02:48 AM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
Dude, you are making the same argument over and over.

In the face of your distortions of my argument, I'm restating and elaborating on my actual argument. Don't like it? Stop distorting my argument.

235 posted on 02/03/2012 10:28:15 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: newheart

“nobody gets to tell me what to believe in or what to do” so apt in my case. As a young person I often felt I had to remind my older associates/relatives that I had as much right to the roadway of life as any older person. Of course this attitude was tempered quite a bit as I went through infantry training and overseas duty in WWII. After that enlightening experience my attitude changed towards realization that the world,i.e. my relatives and associates or others, did not owe me any part of their roadway. Today my view has changed somewhat so that I feel I do not have to and will not get off the roadway for any person ,old or young, who believes I shouldn’t be there.


236 posted on 02/03/2012 11:31:48 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

CHONG: Who is it?
CHEECH: It’s me, Dave. Open up, man, I got the stuff.
(More knocks)
CHONG: Who is it?
CHEECH: It’s me, Dave, man. Open up, I got the stuff.
CHONG: Who?
CHEECH: It’s, Dave, man. Open up, I think the cops saw me come in here.
(More knocks)
CHONG: Who is it?
CHEECH: It’s, Dave, man. Will you open up, I got the stuff with me.
CHONG: Who?
CHEECH: Dave, man. Open up.
CHONG: Dave?
CHEECH: Yeah, Dave. C’mon, man, open up, I think the cops saw me.
CHONG: Dave’s not here.
CHEECH: No, man, I’m Dave, man.
(Sharp knocks at the door)
CHEECH: Hey, c’mon, man.
CHONG: Who is it?
CHEECH: It’s Dave, man. Will you open up? I got the stuff with me.
CHONG: Who?
CHEECH: Dave, man. Open up.
CHONG: Dave?
CHEECH: Yeah, Dave.
CHONG: Dave’s not here.
CHEECH: What the hell? No, man, I am Dave, man. Will you...
(More knocks)
CHEECH: C’mon! Open up the door, will you? I got the stuff with me, I think the cops saw me.
CHONG: Who is it?
CHEECH: Oh, what the hell is it...c’mon. Open up the door! It’s Dave!
CHONG: Who?
CHEECH: Dave! D-A-V-E! Will you open up the goddam door!
CHONG: Dave?
CHEECH: Yeah, Dave!
CHONG: Dave?
CHEECH: Right, man. Dave. Now will you open up the door?
CHONG: Dave’s not here


237 posted on 02/03/2012 12:26:47 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
A classic. Better drop by here - the drug-war supporters are being beaten like rented mules and could really use your help.
238 posted on 02/03/2012 1:24:00 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Sadly I am not a drug war supporter.


239 posted on 02/03/2012 2:05:57 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I did look at the thread. By druggie standards you are right. By the standards of reality I think the mules are quiet comfortable....


240 posted on 02/03/2012 2:09:42 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
I am not a drug war supporter.

What public drug policy do you prefer?

241 posted on 02/03/2012 2:18:42 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Reasoned and well planned enforcement against supplies and suppliers with support for those who are true victims and reasonable sentencing.


242 posted on 02/03/2012 2:56:10 PM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
How, in your view, does that differ from the drug war that you do not support?
243 posted on 02/03/2012 2:58:36 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Sentencing changes, an adjust in focus better utilization of resources, more assets locally. Many differences are possible. The current War on Drugs concept is out dated. The answer is not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Of course at the rate we are going you'll get you cheap legal hash and wont be looking over your shoulder. I will be close to gone by the, and not long after that so with the US. Everyone will be strung out and worthless. My son will have to be the one worried about the legal crackhead running into him.

Slippery slope do your stuff. Everyone light up.

244 posted on 02/04/2012 8:59:14 AM PST by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
Sentencing changes,

Longer sentences are unlikely to make much difference, seeing as how dealers willingly risk death (from competitors and edgy customers).

an adjust in focus better utilization of resources, more assets locally.

I'm all for moving responsibility to a local level. Do you support allowing localities to legalize if they so choose?

Many differences are possible. The current War on Drugs concept is out dated. The answer is not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Of course at the rate we are going you'll get you cheap legal hash and wont be looking over your shoulder. I will be close to gone by the, and not long after that so with the US. Everyone will be strung out and worthless.

That's not what happened when the drug alcohol was legalized, so there's no reason to expect it when other drugs are legalized.

245 posted on 02/06/2012 3:06:31 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

There’s no way to make any headway with this individual. In the Dictionary under “Obtuse” is says, “See JustSayNoToNannies”


246 posted on 02/07/2012 2:23:22 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-246 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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