Ron Paul: I Want To 'Legalize Freedom' What's So Bad About That?

Originally posted by abilitiy
Man I love Ron Paul, but I'm so sick of the media always bringing up the legalizing drugs and prostitution trying to make him look bad. I also love how they try to throw trick questions at him or make him look bad and he immediately has a great/smart answer and pwns them. America needs to wake up! Ron Paul 2012!!!

You are right man.
media brings up the legalizing drugs and prostitution trying to make him look bad

Godspeed Dr. Paul. You are our last hope!

reply to post by jude11


Believe me, I would like nothing more than to have a little faith in what Ron Paul is claiming, however we must all be vigilant in remembering that HE IS A POLITICIAN, and if there is anything that we have learned from politicians it's that they can not be trusted.

All of his campaigning to "legalize freedom" I do agree with, but, the fact remains that he is a politician. Does anyone not think that his platform is just another rouse to get him into position? This could be Obama all over again, instilling false promises and false futures. It's what politicians do best. It is their jobs to make the public believe whatever THEY want them too.

Can we really trust in anything any politician says or does? I think not. history has proven that.
What is the real agenda here?
Who are the real minds behind his reasoning?

It is a scary world of politics, and they only look out for themselves, If you think that any politician has any of the people at heart...I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken.

- Simms

reply to post by AgentSimms


There's a difference between a politician and a statemen, and Ron Paul has been consistent in damned near everything he says - aside from moving away from the 'open borders' view of mainstream libertarianism - for decades. You can check out his record, writings, and videos over the last 30 years - Ron Paul now is Ron Paul then.

And even if some find his opinions or solutions misguided - usually due to lack of complete review of what Ron Paul says as well as misunderstanding of the root cause and effects of those issues themselves - there is no valid reason to doubt his sincerity, as is usually somewhat easy to tell when reviewing a candidate's history. Ron Paul has never taken a politically popular view in his tenure, other than when his views were finally recognized as valid back in 2007 or so - and he's STILL shouldered aside by the republican orthodoxy and majority of the party.

To the posters who said Ron Paul supporters treat him just like Obama supporters treated Obama before the last election are incorrect - Ron Paul supporters treat Ron Paul the way we treated RON PAUL before the last election - and had more people done the same and motivated to support him then, we'd likely be must less in debt today as well as more free and safe. With Ron Paul, for the majority of us at least, it's not the man - it's the message, and the simple fact that he's got the right one in a whole package.

I'll be honest, if I got the same level of consistency, integrity, and right-thinking as I do with Ron Paul from a younger more 'viable' candidate (likely to be voted for by the majority of old guard republicans, so more likely to win nomination), I would be supporting them. But I don't have that option - I've got a lot of people who've made big mistakes for claiming to understand and defend the constitution, people who continue to need government control and prohibitions, and who wouldn't understand or attempt necessary action to resolve large and pressing issues. And when I've already got this guy here, who called the issues before they even became apparent to most other political leaders (as well as how to address them)...why would I not trust his judgement and affinity for speaking truth to power?

To those comparing Paul to Obama as an example of how Paul would handle being in office - no. Just no. Before the election, I was warning people about Obama's changing stances, backing off promises, and crocodile smiles toward change and the constitution. Paul has already admitted he would have to work with congress, but Paul would be Paul and that's consistent and pointing one direction - time and politial expediency haven't even shifted his views. It's possible he might not accomplish a lot, but that would be the fault of congress continuing to oppose the more-apparent will of their constituents.

There's just not really any comparison to Ron Paul and the politicians we've grown used to, and with good reason - Ron Paul is not a politician. He's a statemen that actually works to represent the will and needs of the people, and was a doctor delivering babies and offering discounted services instead of accepting taxpayer funded benefits when he wasn't in an office that he took because he was concerned about what he saw happening - and he pushes for us to do the same thing.

I don't see anyone else out there who holds a candle, and that's just that.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Of course, it's very easy to say a lot of things that you know you will never have to back up. That's another problem Paul has. He can get out there and basically say whatever the hell he wants, because he knows his ideas are never going to actually be enacted.

And it's also easy to offer simple opinion with nothing to back it up and no better options to present.

And so long as he brings home the bacon for his district (which he does; your tax dollars are funding shrimpers represented by mr. Paul) they're not going to boot him out.

Better him directing the money to help people in his district than not doing so and letting the executive office (that's Obama's) decide how to spend the money instead - it's already allotted for spending, it's just a matter of if congress does their job to help their people or not. You do understand this is the nature of earmarks, yes?

I suspect that his game will change a hell of a lot if he's ever in a position where he has to actually back up his positions; a situation that he hasn't been in in thirty years.

Again, blind opinion and nothing else. Do you offer a better alternative with any better qualifications?

Originally posted by Carseller4
Nothing wrong with "legalizing" freedom. But Paul's problem is that he doesn't seem to want to do much to protect it from Muslim terrorists that want to destroy it.

Those muslim terrorists just want you the heck out of their country and to be free.

Osama Bin Forgotten wanted the US military out of Saudi Arabia, he won. Saudi booted the US military out.

Hence why Obama's had to find new turf over there and slaughter millions of muslims so you have electricity and gas to drive your big ole suv.

We're the terrorists.

reply to post by WXBackdoor

Ron Paul is a soundbites machine.

His supporters eat his soundbites all day long because that is what they want to hear.

He is loved for what he says not for what he does.
He is all talk and no action.
edit on 21-6-2011 by WXBackdoor because: (no reason given)

Well...yes, supporters of politicians listen to those politicians because the politicians tend to be saying things the supporters agree with and view as necessary to address certain political concerns - but Ron Paul is not just a soundbites machine - he's a common sense machine, if he's any sort of machine. Go to your library and read through his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom", which is a collection of a lot of lonely and ignored speeches he gave before congress - that if listened to by congress and brought to the awareness of the people at the time may have saved us a lot of grief and money.

What action would you ask of him, exactly? He's introduced a lot of good legislation to benefit the states and the people, helped his district, and brought very important concerns to the national stage before these issues finally exploded visibly and most people finally became aware that they existed.

I'm not sure what people posting comments like this are really even trying to say. What action can you point to by most other congressman? It's the nature of their job to not have a whole lot visible to be attributed to them, but if you can think of any, let me know how it benefitted your life or the lives of others, as well, please.

I'm a left wing European and the only US politician who I would ever vote for if I was from the USA would be Ron Paul, purely on the trust and freedom issue, imho he's the only one who can fix the corrupt mess.

reply to post by Carseller4

Nothing wrong with "legalizing" freedom. But Paul's problem is that he doesn't seem to want to do much to protect it from Muslim terrorists that want to destroy it.

Oh, wise one in foreign policy, please educate me how wearing out and diluting our military by spreading them out around the world on multiple deployments (which leaves less and less-rested defenders here at home securing our borders and - yes - defending us), often to areas where they are disliked (sooner or later) for being heavy-handed, intrusive, and even committing atrocities as we saw at Abu Ghraib as well as with the kill squads in Afghanistan, does anything to "protect" us from anyone, and how it DOESN'T engender dislike and hostility.

You might do well to think that ending one motive certain groups have for hating us - us intruding in their lands (which, by the way, does nothing to somehow 'trap' the 'bad guys' over there to magically somehow keep them from getting us here - jeez, listen to what bin Laden himself said, when we act like this, they win since we're left weaker and poorer, as well as less free - the government has done more harm to us than terrorists ever would have been able to), as well as having a strong guard force securing and actually defending us here at home, in addition to streamlining out intelligence agencies to make them leaner and more efficient, might be more beneficial than...well, acting like a bunch of idiots and interfering with pretty much everyone else's business - thus making us a target for no good reason.

Silliness. All of it.

Originally posted by AgentSimms
reply to post by jude11

 

Believe me, I would like nothing more than to have a little faith in what Ron Paul is claiming, however we must all be vigilant in remembering that HE IS A POLITICIAN, and if there is anything that we have learned from politicians it's that they can not be trusted.

All of his campaigning to "legalize freedom" I do agree with, but, the fact remains that he is a politician. Does anyone not think that his platform is just another rouse to get him into position? This could be Obama all over again, instilling false promises and false futures. It's what politicians do best. It is their jobs to make the public believe whatever THEY want them too.

Can we really trust in anything any politician says or does? I think not. history has proven that.
What is the real agenda here?
Who are the real minds behind his reasoning?

It is a scary world of politics, and they only look out for themselves, If you think that any politician has any of the people at heart...I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken.

- Simms

I do agree with what you are saying. Absolutely.

Many posters here have said things along the same lines but the fact still remains. Ron Paul has been around a long time and has been passed up many times...but he's still here and has always stood for freedoms and a return to the Constitution.

How many other candidates have even mentioned the Constitution? In fact, Obama has no use for it as he seems bent on creating his own.

Here is a man that hasn't flip-flopped on issues or changed sides while other politicians seem to change their party according to what is popular at the time. And these are to be trusted?

The issue here is actually a question of what more harm can he do that hasn't been done already? Bush/Obama have ruined the Country and crippled the Globe. Will Paul continue down their path? I don't think so.

All of his radical ideas of legalizing drugs, ending the occupations overseas etc, have always been opposed by whoever has been in the House yet these are issues that the people clearly want addressed.

I would say that the current status-quo hasn't worked so well and it's a time like no other for America to take a radical approach to solutions before it's too late. And that means Ron Paul.

Time to shake things up and Ron is capable of doing that...IMO

reply to post by Praetorius


I don't disagree with you. I just have a really hard time believing in anything that any statesman/politician (especially those that want to be president) has to say. Time and time again the "elected" politicians have proven to us that they do not represent the best interest of the people that have put them in office. They are supposed to make their choices on what the people have voted for. Truth is they make choices based on who is funding their campaigns, Lobbyists and the such.

I want to be able to trust what Paul says, I want there to be a good person that will stand up against the atrocities that the elites have put this country through. I really do. However, they can only cry wolf for so long. Every one knows the government lies to us, every one knows that we live in a police state; not only caused by elected officials but deny that it even exists (try flying these days).

I guess I have just been too burned by the whole system and the people we put in charge of it to think that they are going to do something good for us. Power corrupts absolutely, isn't that how the saying goes?
To me, trusting a politician is like leaving a crackhead to guard your most valuable possession. You know he is going to lie to your face, you know you will be taken for whatever you have and that it will burn in flames and just go up like smoke.

-Simms

Originally posted by Carseller4
Nothing wrong with "legalizing" freedom. But Paul's problem is that he doesn't seem to want to do much to protect it from Muslim terrorists that want to destroy it.

Wow. That seems more like your own problem. Our government has done A LOT more to destroy our freedom than any Muslim terrorist has.

"Muslims hate us because we're free!" - No, Muslim extremists hate us because we're in their region blowing things up in 7 different countries.

Don't drink the Kool-aid, Carseller.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by jude11

 

Rather than address the points brought up, he goes on a blather about "Hurf I want to legalize freedom, durf durf I want to legalize the constitution! I can't understand why ANYONE would question any of my positions!"

This is why he doesn't really do too well in polls; He's essentially a fundamentalist, his ideas are all unquestionably right, not becuase htye actually are, but simply because they're his. Many of his acolytes arre the same way - it's not so much what's being said, as who's saying it.

The question he was asked was about the Legalization of drugs and prostitution... He has been asked this question a hundred times in debates and/or interviews and has stated plenty that he doesn't want to "legalize it". He wants to take the power to legalize it and GIVE IT TO THE STATES. But i guess it doesn't make sense to let people control their way of life in their community through a vote. I guess it doesn't make sense that people within the community know whats best for that community than a group of people on the other side of the country. No, none of that makes sense, except to me and Ron Paul supporters.

reply to post by AgentSimms

I don't disagree with you. I just have a really hard time believing in anything that any statesman/politician (especially those that want to be president) has to say. Time and time again the "elected" politicians have proven to us that they do not represent the best interest of the people that have put them in office. They are supposed to make their choices on what the people have voted for. Truth is they make choices based on who is funding their campaigns, Lobbyists and the such.

I feel your pain, friend - it sounds like you're where I was at before a friend told me to check out Paul back in early 2007. I have yet to be disappointed as he's got a record spanning decades that shows he practices what he preaches and doesn't shift with political winds.

And I love the last part you added about their choices being based on who's funding their campaigns - I highly suggest you look into Ron Paul's donor records...I love the fact that most of his campaign contributions are in small amounts from individual donors, and that last quarter 2007, he received more money from active-duty military employees than all other candidates combined - including democrats (I believe). Lobbyists, to my knowledge, consider him to be damaged goods and don't even bother. Please verify this as needed, but I believe he is well at odds with pretty much the rest of the field in this regard.

I want to be able to trust what Paul says, I want there to be a good person that will stand up against the atrocities that the elites have put this country through. I really do. However, they can only cry wolf for so long. Every one knows the government lies to us, every one knows that we live in a police state; not only caused by elected officials but deny that it even exists (try flying these days).

I'd like to suggest you listen to more of his own words - Paul is concerned about and addresses these same matters, and is a big part why he wants to get the federal government out of everything other than what the constitution allots to them - which is a pretty big trim, and returns a lot of power to us as well as trims down the federal funding and militarization of local/state police forces currently receiving a lot of federal funds and collaboration.

I guess I have just been too burned by the whole system and the people we put in charge of it to think that they are going to do something good for us. Power corrupts absolutely, isn't that how the saying goes?
To me, trusting a politician is like leaving a crackhead to guard your most valuable possession. You know he is going to lie to your face, you know you will be taken for whatever you have and that it will burn in flames and just go up like smoke.

Understandably so, friend - and the quote is that absolute power corrupts absolutely (otherwise just 'power corrupts')...and this is another reason I refer to Paul as a statesman, not a politician, and love him for admitting (and warning of, ahead of time) as much - congress has claimed too much power under out-of-context interpretations of certain clauses in the constitution, and the executive has been grabbing excessive power beyond that allowed for decades as well - Paul's on the record speaking for shrinking government, protecting liberty, returning power to the states, and getting the gov't out of our business, and he lays out the reasons for this, historical examples & justification for doing so, and the knowledge and consistency to actually do so.

I'm not inclined to trst politicians - but as I've said, I can't call Paul a politician. He's a country doctor that saw a need and decided to get involved, and has just done the best he can. Whatever else might come from that, that may just honestly be enough for me as compared to everything else we've received up to now.

Originally posted by BanMePlz
Is it true that ron paul does not believe in separation of church and state? Because if it is, i will NEVER vote for the guy..

haha where did her that?

I strongly suggest you research the man before jumping to conclusions of any kind. I do not just say this for Ron Paul, I say this for ANY Candidate that is running for Office. If you ever have any intentions on voting, then you have a responsibility to know WHO you are putting in office. Do not go by what you "hear", do not go by "blogs" and never listen to a news site that tells you what to think. Their job is report facts and let you draw your own conclusion, not tell you what the conclusion is. I also highly recommend to never vote strictly by party lines either. The only thing you can truly do as a voter is research and look at voting records and decide for yourself based on facts.

Originally posted by pikypiky
To 'Legalize Freedom' is bad if certain people want to "exercise freedom" that is NOT socially acceptable, such as bestiality, etc.

You do realize that in some states Beastiality is still technically legal? Many states do not have specific laws against having sex with animals, however those states usually make arrest under animal cruelty laws. I have to ask, what makes you think that in Ron Paul were elected these laws would disappear? They are not Federal Laws, these are States Laws which would not change because Paul becomes President.

Drugs would not become legal overnight... what Ron Paul would do is decriminalize it at a Federal Level. That has nothing to do with State Government. The States would then be free to decide for themselves weather to legalize or not.

Legalize freedom? What's up with that. Next thing you know he'll be coming out for privacy rights and freedom of assembly and all those other old-timey notions. I'll chalk it up to his age, he just saw too much growing up and obviously hung out with the wrong crowd. Legalize freedom, where would that lead us? Ron Paul, get a job, you long-haired hippie!

Originally posted by WXBackdoor
Ron Paul is a soundbites machine.

His supporters eat his soundbites all day long because that is what they want to hear.

He is loved for what he says not for what he does.
He is all talk and no action.

edit on 21-6-2011 by WXBackdoor because: (no reason given)

Of all the wrong things on this thread this is probably the worst, and there were some doozies from the same bobbleheads that never seem to be able to back up their statements with anything resembling facts. His voting record for the last 30 years is part of the public record. He is all talk and all action, sir. Do research. If you come up with any inconsistencies, then bring them to the table. Otherwise, you're spewing fantasy.

Not one, single detractor on this thread, or any other thread about Dr. Paul, ever has an alternate candidate in mind, nor can they bring any facts to the table. Invariably the comments go like this:

"Ron Paul is a shill! He's not a viable candidate!"
"Who would be better?"
"I don't know, but I know I don't like Ron Paul because he's a shill and not a viable candidate!"

The words "Deny Ignorance" are all over the freaking website. Read them every once in a while.

/TOA

reply to post by jude11


What's wrong with it? Because he is NOT legalizing freedom. He is removing any barrier between the strong wiping our, or at a minimum enslaving, the weak.

Corporations are on the verge of running the United States. And for all the TeaBagging Glee at the elimination of unions, gay rights, etc., be assured they are next.

Government AND corporations are necessary. One may not have power over the other. The minority MUST have protection from the majority.

But, no, the little Paulites think that having a nation of Warlords is, somehow, freedom. Sad that education is looked upon with disdain in the United States. It's the only way these morons survive.

Originally posted by jude11

One more note...Why isn't Freedom legal anyway? Who made it illegal? That is the real question here. ?

Rome i mean TPTB...made Freedom illegal a long time ago, but Rome succeeded to fool world population throughout history and make them beleive they are Free human being when in reality it was all an illusion...even today, many thinks they are free...fools...!