too good house!!!

awesome post heretic !

Yes, I agree, it's been a healthy debate, lot's of learning and knowledge has been stimulated here


EDIT: For all that have contributed, hopefully we've all had our share of humility on this topic, I can say I have


Peace & Love Nexain brothers <3

Oh boy here we go again,

Olymon, I thought you brought up a very valid point.

Releasing all drug offenders without eliminating prohibition is a very dangerous proposition. Even if the prisoner doesn't have a violent record, there are many cartel-associated drug offenders. To pardon them all without eliminating prohibition would almost certainly bolster the hold the cartels have on black market drug dealing, and thus would only serve to encourage black market related violence.

I feel that it is immoral to imprison people for possessing illegal drugs, or even for distributing illegal drugs for profit... but there is a systematic change that is needed. I think that people who want to decriminalize possession without legalizing distribution miss the point, and are almost as dangerous as those who support outright prohibition. Full legalization is the only way to hamstring violent black market cartels, and the only way to reduce the social and physical harm that addictive illegal drugs cause.

With regards to Ron Paul: I like much of what he stands for, but not all of it. I have voted for him before. But at this point in time, I don't know that I could do that, for a variety of complex reasons. As president, he would have very limited powers that could be harnessed for good ends. But he would also have powers that would allow him to cause significant harm, particularly the way I expect he would use presidential veto power. It's a complex issue, and I can sympathize with both sides.

But in the end, I tend to agree with a1pha: I do not come to the DMT Nexus for propaganda. Discussion of politics is not forbidden, but when someone repeatedly posts propaganda for a candidate without meaningfully engaging the valid criticisms that are raised (and is not a citizen of the nation in which they are running), it leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth. Valid perspectives are welcome. Talking points with minimal reflection are not the sort of content I like to read on this forum.

I just read the other 14 post topic, did not know that existed until after this was posted. What have I done!? Still a good video none the less. I am voting for this man based on my gut instinct and my heart chakra I don't feel like I need any other reasons. However if you are curious how Dr. Ron Paul would implement the policies he proposes, you can certainly e-mail him and ask.

I vote for confining this kind of political propaganda to one thread. It is pretty egoistical of you Ron Paul supporters to drown us in your beliefs by plastering the forum with Ron Paul threads. I do not care about US politics, I do not care about politics at all, and i come here to read about DMT and related topics, not to be tricked into reading another propaganda thread.

Please..one thread.

The people, they are passionate! This is a good sign! It means the slumber is ending! You cannot hide yourself from it, by shutting your eyes or putting your hands over your ears! The people speak and will continue to do so!

Is it because you live on the moon?

(I just happened to look at your location right after reading)

PLEASE... ONE THREAD

This

I'm with obliguhl on this. A lot of us aren't in the US; but more to the point this is not the right venue for political campaigns, just as it is not the place to preach religion. If the topic comes up fine, but it does not need to turn into spam, otherwise it should be treated as such, which is not in anyone's interest.

done.

ive moved this to the tavern since the sub forum is society and culture and this thread now goes beyond entheogenic freedom. this is now the official Ron Paul thread.

have at it.

To non-americans, the popularity of a guy like ron paul on substance-related fora such as this is often a bit of a mystery.
He seems very conservative to me, like he wants to turn back the clock at least a century and isolate america from the rest of the world.
People who're supporting him must be realy frustrated with main stream politic's if they don't even care about the lack of realism of this presidential candidate.

don't confuse conservativism with neo-conservativism, the latter is what you described.Perry fits that bill. Paul's politics are more libertarian than anything else; fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal..which is arguably the most sensible stance.

Didn't he also want to close-down the federal reserve bank and have america leaving the U.N., IMF and other international organisations, or am i confusing him with another candidate?

Ron Paul is definitely not a liberal with respect to social issues. Take a look at some of the excerpts from this site:

--- http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm ---


· Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008 )
· Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008 )
· Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008 )
· Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
· Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
· Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
· Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
· Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
· Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
· Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
· Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000)
· Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007)
· No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007)
· Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
· Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
· Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
· Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998 )
· Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
· Rated 38% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
· Rated 39% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action. (Dec 2006)
· Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009)
· Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009)
· Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
· Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007)
· Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools. (Dec 2007)
· Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax writeoff. (Dec 2007)
· Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
· Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
· Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008 )
· Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008 )
· Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008 )
· Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
· Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
· Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
· Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
· Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
· Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
· Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010)
· No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011)
· Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
· Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
· Let airlines make rules about passenger guns to fight terror. (Sep 2007)
· Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
· Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009)
· Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
· Voted NO on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008 )
· Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008 )
· Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
· Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
· Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
· Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
· Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
· Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)

I think its Americas foreign policy that has turned it into the most hated nation on earth, meddling in the affairs of others and starting preemptive wars is a way better way of isolating yourself than minding your own business and talking to nations on a diplomatic level imo

Love us, hate us, it really doesn't matter to our elite...they've got what they've got and they're not going anywhere. Our corporate interests are globalized and protected...the money's rolling in just fine (seriously, despite all the talks of debt in the news, America's elite have so much on hand capital they don't what to do with it...read any business journal OR look at the investments in US bonds following the DOWNGRADING of America's status...it's absurd). What do they care how the rest of the world views us? See, from an American standpoint, we are not meddling, we are controlling/protecting our interests/destiny, the global population and resources are but externalities.

Don't believe me? Watch this 5 minute interview with Susan Rice (American ambassador to the UN)...see how often she refers to the purpose of the UN as to protect/further American interests, not international interests, not international relations, American (read: American corporate/financial) interests. The tagline even reads:

Interview

It's not hidden, we do what we want because we can...Paul isn't going to stop this, he's owned just as much as any other politician. If you think otherwise you're just deluding yourself and ignoring the facts.

I like ya Ray so please don't take this the wrong way... Just thought it was appropriate.

fanatic - a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill