Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Deicide on May 06, 2011, 02:41:50 AM
-
-
Ron utilizes too much logic for the average American. It's a shame we will never get a president like him.
-
Now thats a real republican not the shit we have to deal with on a regular basis
I support this guy all the way
No repub or dem for that matter comes even close
-
If I wanted to vote for someone who wants to legalize dope, whoring, and gay "marriage", I'd be a "progressive".
I'm not going to say Democrat, because there are millions of Democrats who don't want this stuff legalized. In fact, when it comes to gay "marriage", what frustrates far-left progressives/liberals the most is that it's Democrats that help marriage amendments pass rather easily, even in blue states where Republicans have no chance of winning.
There was next to no "logic" in Paul's statement. We don't need him to be president to practice our faith and beliefs within our homes. We already have that. What Paul doesn’t seem to get is that, as the saying goes, no man is an island. At certain levels, people's private lives affect public lives (theirs and those of their neighbors).
You want a crackhead driving your kids to school? You want a ho as a Girl Scout leader or member of the PTA? Most people don't.
As for gay "marriage", that adversely affects society for several reasons. One, it discourages procreation. Notice that, in countries where gay "marriage" has been legal long term, their birth rates are in the toilet.
Two, for all that flap from liberals that legalizing gay "marriage" will promote monogamy among homosexuals (that's like a thief robbing the same store multiple times) and marriage overall, that's ridiculous. Again, in countries where it's been legal long term and in states in the US, where it's been legal, marriage rates are at a severe LOW. And some studies claim that many gay couples (males, in particular) stay together an average of 18 months and the split is due to "cheating".
I heard someone on other thread brag about how Connecticut and Massachusetts have the lowest divorce rates in the countries. And gay "marriage" has been legal there (Mass, in particular) for a long time. What they forgot to mention is that those two states have the lowest MARRIAGE RATES in the country. Few marriages, few divorces.....hardly something about which to pound your chest.
We need a true conservative to beat Barack Obama. And Ron Paul doesn't appear to be that. Every time the folk in the GOP try to go middle of the road, they get beat up.
-
If I wanted to vote for someone who wants to legalize dope, whoring, and gay "marriage", I'd be a "progressive".
I'm not going to say Democrat, because there are millions of Democrats who don't want this stuff legalized. In fact, when it comes to gay "marriage", what frustrates far-left progressives/liberals the most is that it's Democrats that help marriage amendments pass rather easily, even in blue states where Republicans have no chance of winning.
There was next to no "logic" in Paul's statement. We don't need him to be president to practice our faith and beliefs within our homes. We already have that. What Paul doesn’t seem to get is that, as the saying goes, no man is an island. At certain levels, people's private lives affect public lives (theirs and those of their neighbors).
You want a crackhead driving your kids to school? You want a ho as a Girl Scout leader or member of the PTA? Most people don't.
As for gay "marriage", that adversely affects society for several reasons. One, it discourages procreation. Notice that, in countries where gay "marriage" has been legal long term, their birth rates are in the toilet.
Two, for all that flap from liberals that legalizing gay "marriage" will promote monogamy among homosexuals (that's like a thief robbing the same store multiple times) and marriage overall, that's ridiculous. Again, in countries where it's been legal long term and in states in the US, where it's been legal, marriage rates are at a severe LOW. And some studies claim that many gay couples (males, in particular) stay together an average of 18 months and the split is due to "cheating".
I heard someone on other thread brag about how Connecticut and Massachusetts have the lowest divorce rates in the countries. And gay "marriage" has been legal there (Mass, in particular) for a long time. What they forgot to mention is that those two states have the lowest MARRIAGE RATES in the country. Few marriages, few divorces.....hardly something about which to pound your chest.
We need a true conservative to beat Barack Obama. And Ron Paul doesn't appear to be that. Every time the folk in the GOP try to go middle of the road, they get beat up.
Oh brother... ::)
-
Whats wrong with being a progressive ???
-
Oh brother... ::)
yup I didnt think anyone could find fault in rons answer but I guess Im wrong.
-
yup I didnt think anyone could find fault in rons answer but I guess Im wrong.
Well, MCWAY is the most fundamentalist Christian on these boards, so it shouldn't surprise anyone; if it were up to him, the Ten Commandments would replace the Constitution.
Fortunately, people who believe that gay marriage is the greatest threat to civilisation are in the minority.
-
Plus, what Paul apparently forgets is that the states ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT to legalize gay "marriage". What the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) does is define marriage federally. Plus, it also makes sure that if one state has gay "marriage", another state IS NOT FORCED to recognize it. Massachusetts has it; Florida doesn't. And when a lesbian couple from Mass. tried to force the Sunshine State to recognize it, the courts says NOPE, thanks to DOMA.
-
Well, MCWAY is the most fundamentalist Christian on these boards, so it shouldn't surprise anyone; if it were up to him, the Ten Commandments would replace the Constitution.
Fortunately, people who believe that gay marriage is the greatest threat to civilisation are in the minority.
The Constitution allows us to govern our lives and our country by the Ten Commandments, if we so desire it. Nobody claims that gay "marriage" is the greatest threat to civilization. But, we don't let social issues slip through the cracks, just because there are economic or military issues that are front and center.
That is a standard liberal tactic, using economic crisis to wiggle social changes into the equation.
-
You cant legalize drugs because you risk the schoolbus driver on them then ??? WTF
Then guns should be illegal and i guess cars too
-
Plus, what Paul apparently forgets is that the states ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT to legalize gay "marriage". What the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) does is define marriage federally. Plus, it also makes sure that if one state has gay "marriage", another state IS NOT FORCED to recognize it. Massachusetts has it; Florida doesn't. And when a lesbian couple from Mass. tried to force the Sunshine State to recognize it, the courts says NOPE, thanks to DOMA.
He doesn't want the federal government involved period.
-
The Constitution allows us to govern our lives and our country by the Ten Commandments, if we so desire it. Nobody claims that gay "marriage" is the greatest threat to civilization. But, we don't let social issues slip through the cracks, just because there are economic or military issues that are front and center.
That is a standard liberal tactic, using economic crisis to wiggle social changes into the equation.
If you had any idea how many people suffer because of the 'War on Drugs' you would realise how bad an idea it is to keep it going.
You should be advocating banning alcohol as well for the sake of consistency.
-
If you had any idea how many people suffer because of the 'War on Drugs' you would realise how bad an idea it is to keep it going.
You should be advocating banning alcohol as well for the sake of consistency.
and caffeine, along with most medications
-
and caffeine, along with most medications
Yup; alcohol is MUCH more dangerous than grass.
Rightwing Christians never get this though.
-
If you had any idea how many people suffer because of the 'War on Drugs' you would realise how bad an idea it is to keep it going.
You should be advocating banning alcohol as well for the sake of consistency.
Legalizing drugs isn't going to stop any of that suffering. And many MORE will suffering with strong narcotics being far more easily accesible. Having lived in an environment with family members who have been on drugs, I know firsthand how people suffer with drug use.
-
Legalizing drugs isn't going to stop any of that suffering. And many MORE will suffering with strong narcotics being far more easily accesible. Having lived in an environment with family members who have been on drugs, I know firsthand how people suffer with drug use.
So you think cancer patients who use marijuana medically should be put in jail? Very strange.
-
So you think cancer patients who use marijuana medically should be put in jail? Very strange.
Why do cancer patients need to use weed? There are other medicine that treat cancer symptoms without the narcotic effects of marijuana.
That tired argument is about as lame as the abortion for incest/rape/life of mother argument is. Those are few are far in between and need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Just as the lion's share of abortions are ELECTIVE and have nothing to with rape or incest or life endangerment, the lion's share of people whining about weak ain't sick. They're just trying to get blazed.
-
and caffeine, along with most medications
How many drive-by shootings have been done because of a Mountain Dew sale gone wrong, again?
::)
-
Legalizing drugs isn't going to stop any of that suffering. And many MORE will suffering with strong narcotics being far more easily accesible. Having lived in an environment with family members who have been on drugs, I know firsthand how people suffer with drug use.
Yeah because drug users dont take drugs now that it is illegal ::)
How about taking the billion of dollars saved on drug crime if we made it illegal and used on something better? Maybe fixing the economy?
and not only that we would also cut down crime by 50% at least
But no lets keep it illegal so some idiot doesnt take it just because the government hasnt outlawed it. Your the worst type of liberal wanting to decide peoples lives for them. Move to Russia please
-
Yeah because drug users dont take drugs now that it is illegal ::)
How about taking the billion of dollars saved on drug crime if we made it illegal and used on something better? Maybe fixing the economy?
and not only that we would also cut down crime by 50% at least
But no lets keep it illegal so some idiot doesnt take it just because the government hasnt outlawed it. Your the worst type of liberal wanting to decide peoples lives for them. Move to Russia please
Gee, as if we never had a flourishing economy without legalizing dope ::)
That's always happens with "liberals" like you. As I said earlier, always trying to use an economic crisis to change social mores.
"We're broke!! I know! Let's have women, slinging coochie on the street to boost our economy; Let them smoke dope, too!!".
Has it ever occured to you that, because (in part) due to people being strung out on this mess, they aren't feeding their families, taking care of their kids. That means more welfare cases, more hospital bills, and more people LIVING IN POVERTY.
BTW, weed and other narcotics are legal in Mexico. Just look at the bastion of peace and tranquility that is. ::)
-
How many drive-by shootings have been done because of a Mountain Dew sale gone wrong, again?
::)
I thought you wanted to prohibit any drug that could change the mental state of a person? ???
Does your little drive-by shooting example mean you want to ban guns?
MCWAY I have a question for you: It's your stance that we shouldn't legalize drugs to help the economy because drugs kill people, right? So does that mean you would support lowering the speed limit to 10 MPH? Highway deaths kill much more people than drugs do, but we don't lower the speed limit because it would hurt the economy. So why is it when talking about drugs, you prefer to not worry about the economy and focus on saving lives but in regards to highway speed limits, I assume you would vote to worry about the economy and disregard saving lives.
-
I thought you wanted to prohibit any drug that could change the mental state of a person? ???
Does your little drive-by shooting example mean you want to ban guns?
MCWAY I have a question for you: It's your stance that we shouldn't legalize drugs to help the economy because drugs kill people, right? So does that mean you would support lowering the speed limit to 10 MPH? Highway deaths kill much more people than drugs do, but we don't lower the speed limit because it would hurt the economy. So why is it when talking about drugs, you prefer to not worry about the economy and focus on saving lives but in regards to highway speed limits, I assume you would vote to worry about the economy and disregard saving lives.
Speed limits get altered a lot, based on factors like safety. And there's no universal speed limit. You don't go 10 MPH on the interstate; you don't go 75 in a residental area with kids riding their bikes and playing ball.
There are WAY MORE highway travelers than there are crackheads. So, of course, there are way more highway deaths than there are ODs.
-
Gee, as if we never had a flourishing economy without legalizing dope ::)
That's always happens with "liberals" like you. As I said earlier, always trying to use an economic crisis to change social mores.
"We're broke!! I know! Let's have women, slinging coochie on the street to boost our economy; Let them smoke dope, too!!".
Has it ever occured to you that, because (in part) due to people being strung out on this mess, they aren't feeding their families, taking care of their kids. That means more welfare cases, more hospital bills, and more people LIVING IN POVERTY.
BTW, weed and other narcotics are legal in Mexico. Just look at the bastion of peace and tranquility that is. ::)
The only liberal here is you you want the government to decide for us. Im the other way around. And im not referring to our bad economy actually as much as pointing out that billions of dollars each year is wasted on a lost cause. If people are gonna do drugs its their choice fuck em. They can OD for all i care but its individual freedom to choose and i support that
-
Speed limits get altered a lot, based on factors like safety. And there's no universal speed limit. You don't go 10 MPH on the interstate; you don't go 75 in a residental area with kids riding their bikes and playing ball.
There are WAY MORE highway travelers than there are crackheads. So, of course, there are way more highway deaths than there are ODs.
But you don't know the ratio of ODs per drug user. The top two preventable deaths in America are related to obesity, but I don't see you saying we should ban McDonald's. I think you are inconsistent in your thoughts about what should be banned and why. If you're worrying solely about saving lives at the expense of the economy, you would support a 10 MPH speed limit on all highways. If you're worried solely about eliminating products that are harmful to health, then McDonald's should be at the top of that list as well.
-
The only liberal here is you you want the government to decide for us. Im the other way around. And im not referring to our bad economy actually as much as pointing out that billions of dollars each year is wasted on a lost cause. If people are gonna do drugs its their choice fuck em. They can OD for all i care but its individual freedom to choose and i support that
If there's one thing I'm not (and NOBODY has ever accused me of being, except you) is a liberal. When your dope-smoking puts my community or my family in danger, it becomes my business. And, I know firsthand that drug users ain't islands. Their behavior doesn't just affect them. It affects their wives/husbands, children, family members and neighbors.
-
But you don't know the ratio of ODs per drug user. The top two preventable deaths in America are related to obesity, but I don't see you saying we should ban McDonald's. I think you are inconsistent in your thoughts about what should be banned and why. If you're worrying solely about saving lives at the expense of the economy, you would support a 10 MPH speed limit on all highways. If you're worried solely about eliminating products that are harmful to health, then McDonald's should be at the top of that list as well.
Why ban McDonalds? Eating there once in a while harms few, if any, to any substantial degree. Living off their fattiest fare for years on end is not only cost-inefficient, it's just plain dumb.
What causes fatalities on the road ain't speed limits. It's driving DRUNK, STONED, fatigued, distracted, or just plain wrecklessly. That's what killing people, not speed. Most car accidents happen close to home, at speeds under 40 MPH. I've been in three accidents, two of which were within just a few miles of where I lived, one was at the gate of the apartment complex where I lived.
-
Why ban McDonalds? Eating there once in a while harms few, if any, to any substantial degree. Living off their fattiest fare for years on end is not only cost-inefficient, it's just plain dumb .
What causes fatalities on the road ain't speed limits. It's driving DRUNK, STONED, fatigued, distracted, or just plain wrecklessly. That's what killing people, not speed. Most car accidents happen close to home, at speeds under 40 MPH.
so would you agree that it's silly to ban all drugs, and that we should encourage only moderate uses of them for health benefits (getting chemo patients to eat more, etc)?
And in regards to the speed limit analogy, you would have to agree that if speed limits were 10 MPH across the board, there would be far fewer deaths than they are now.
-
If there's one thing I'm not (and NOBODY has ever accused me of being, except you) is a liberal. When your dope-smoking puts my community or my family in danger, it becomes my business. And, I know firsthand that drug users ain't islands. Their behavior doesn't just affect them. It affects their wives/husbands, children, family members and neighbors.
Where there is drugs there is crime thats true. But you know why? Its because drugs are illegal thereby making it profitable. The very issue you are trying to fight you are actually creating yourself
-
so would you agree that it's silly to ban all drugs, and that we should encourage only moderate uses of them for health benefits (getting chemo patients to eat more, etc)?
And the health benefits to crack, weed, X, meth would be........
That's the point. Those drugs have more risk than reward and have long since been replaced with more effective, less addictive ones.
And in regards to the speed limit analogy, you would have to agree that if speed limits were 10 MPH across the board, there would be far fewer deaths than they are now.
Not necesarily. Again, look at the factors that I listed that lead to auto deaths. You don't have to be speeding to kill somebody in a car accident.
-
Legalizing drugs would not create a country of users. Most people who have jobs are drug tested, and it would still be illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol & drugs. We are talking about a small percentage of society who would use, and these people are already users who are costing the taxpayers with law enforcement and prisons.
-
Legalizing drugs isn't going to stop any of that suffering. And many MORE will suffering with strong narcotics being far more easily accesible. Having lived in an environment with family members who have been on drugs, I know firsthand how people suffer with drug use.
Tell that to the safe injection site in Vancouver where they reduce the suffering and incidences of disease.
The war on drugs is a lost cause, harm reduction is the only way forward both to save money and to enact changes of behavior.
Your point about gay marriage is so false and baseless it's almost unreasonably stupid.
-
Tell that to the safe injection site in Vancouver where they reduce the suffering and incidences of disease.
The war on drugs is a lost cause, harm reduction is the only way forward both to save money and to enact changes of behavior.
Your point about gay marriage is so false and baseless it's almost unreasonably stupid.
Gee, then how did we have all those years of prosperity, without drugs or prostitution being legal?
We became a Superpower, obtained the #1 military on the planet. And for some strange reason, slinging dope wasn't in the equation.
As for the gay "marriage" thing, DOMA effectively does what Ron Paul cites should be done. It lets the states decide how they wish to define marriage. It ALSO ensures that Massachusetts doesn't get to define Florida's marriage law or that Connecticut doesn't get to define Michigan's law.
The reason Obama wants DOMA gone is that he can effectively endorse gay "marriage" without actually doing so in word. That happens if the other 45 states have to recognize the gay "marriages" from the states that allow it.
-
Gee, then how did we have all those years of prosperity, without drugs or prostitution being legal?
We became a Superpower, obtained the #1 military on the planet. And for some strange reason, slinging dope wasn't in the equation.
As for the gay "marriage" thing, DOMA effectively does what Ron Paul cites should be done. It lets the states decide how they wish to define marriage. It ALSO ensures that Massachusetts doesn't get to define Florida's marriage law or that Connecticut doesn't get to define Michigan's law.
The reason Obama wants DOMA gone is that he can effectively endorse gay "marriage" without actually doing so in word. That happens if the other 45 states have to recognize the gay "marriages" from the states that allow it.
What does that have to do with anything? Alcoholism is treated as an illness, not a crime, so should drug addiction. Our prisons are already bursting, what is the point of putting sick people in them?
-
Gee, then how did we have all those years of prosperity, without drugs or prostitution being legal?
We became a Superpower, obtained the #1 military on the planet. And for some strange reason, slinging dope wasn't in the equation.
World War 2 :-\
-
Could you imagine this Mcway character being your boss at work or worse yet a member of your family. The guys is so blind to failed policies I almost think it is just satire.
-
I don't know why I would take anyone seriously when it comes to this topic if they are going to hold booze to a different standard then most other drugs. We all know the harm alcohol abuse does and how rampant it is but who gives a shit, big brother says its a-ok.
-
All a matter of conditioning.
-
All a matter of conditioning.
Call me stupid but I have a greater tendency to believe or obey those individuals that I trust.
-
" I need the government to take care of me, I dont want to use heroin, thats why we need these laws." lol
classic RP.
-
If I wanted to vote for someone who wants to legalize dope, whoring, and gay "marriage", I'd be a "progressive".
He didn't actually say he wants to "legalize" it. He wants to abolish the FEDERAL laws that criminalize it. This isn't just parsing words. He wants to return authority back to state and local governments. The way it was in this Country's beginnings. State's rights! That is real conservatism.