Ten Reasons to Choose Ron Paul over Obama

Interesting article. Of course, there are many more reasons to choose Dr. Paul, these are just the top ten.

http://www.naturalnews.com/034630_Ro..._liberals.html

Ron Paul is a dangerous, unelectable, isolationist lunatic who would throw the entire world economy into chaos by eliminating the fed and going to a gold standard. He's nuts, he'll never be president. Thank God.

All that having been said, I agree with him on a few things. We should get out of Afghanistan, we should make drugs legal, available and taxable, and we should close Gitmo.

And I suspect that Obama is for all of those things as well.....but actually doing any of those things is not nearly as simple as the good Doctor makes it sound.

Sound money makes him a lunatic. Ok. Whatever.

Ron Paul is a dangerous, unelectable, isolationist lunatic who would throw the entire world economy into chaos by eliminating the fed and going to a gold standard. He's nuts, he'll never be president. Thank God.

All that having been said, I agree with him on a few things. We should get out of Afghanistan, we should make drugs legal, available and taxable, and we should close Gitmo.

And I suspect that Obama is for all of those things as well.....but actually doing any of those things is not nearly as simple as the good Doctor makes it sound. Originally Posted by timpage

+1

Except for the legalization of drugs - most of today's illicit drugs need to remain illegal. The social costs of enforcing drug laws might be high, but the social costs of legalizing those drugs would also be high. And POWs are POWs; they are not covered by the provisions of the Constitution.

Ron Paul is an isolationist and so am I. I'm not for taking it as far as Paul wants to, but that's what compromise is all about. I agree with a lot of his tenets though I wouldn't close Gitmo. If they weren't terrorists when they were brought to Gitmo, they are now.

Unless it is very, very close the Texas primary, I'll not vote in the primary. The law in Texas is that if you vote in the primary, you cannot sign the petition to get in Indy on the general election ballot.

Mr Paul goes to Kroger and buys a basket of staples. At checkout he shoves a 50lb gold brick at the cashier and says .. "I'll take my change in Krugerrands.

Uh HUH !

+1

Except for the legalization of drugs - most of today's illicit drugs need to remain illegal. The social costs of enforcing drug laws might be high, but the social costs of legalizing those drugs would also be high. And POWs are POWs; they are not covered by the provisions of the Constitution. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It seems so simple and obvious: legalize drugs and you take the enormous profits out of drug-dealing. Take out the profit, you get rid of not only the criminal American drug-dealers, you get rid of the maddog drug cartels down south. You don't have to pay to incarcerate the millions of Americans arrested and/or convicted of drug offenses who move through the US criminal justice system year after year, decade after decade. You don't have cops wasting half their time on-duty looking for and arresting some kid holding a couple of spliffs. Instead, they could spend their time doing real police work.

I've got a buddy who is a burglary detective in a major metropolitan police department. He's told me for years, that over 90% of the people he arrests for burglary and theft offenses are drug addicts stealing shit to buy drugs.

No more DEA, no more billions spent on enforcing unenforceable drug laws, no more flushing money down the toilet to Mexico, Columbia, and all the other drug-producing venues.

I'm also always mystified about how folks can think that alcohol being legal is OK but not drugs. Alcohol causes just as many social problems as drugs, probably more. What's the difference? Seems to me that if you think drugs should be illegal that you should think alcohol should be illegal. But, nobody advocates that position.

Somebody help me out here.....

Ron Paul is an isolationist and so am I. I'm not for taking it as far as Paul wants to, but that's what compromise is all about. I agree with a lot of his tenets though I wouldn't close Gitmo. If they weren't terrorists when they were brought to Gitmo, they are now.

Unless it is very, very close the Texas primary, I'll not vote in the primary. The law in Texas is that if you vote in the primary, you cannot sign the petition to get in Indy on the general election ballot. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

The Texas primary will be interesting.....I predict Gingrich winning by a large margin, unless someone comes up with some photos of him with a goat. Actually, I take it back, I doubt that will make a difference to the average Texas GOP voter......that group that gave us the gift of Rick Perry, Boy Genius.

I'm also always mystified about how folks can think that alcohol being legal is OK but not drugs. Alcohol causes just as many social problems as drugs, probably more. What's the difference? Seems to me that if you think drugs should be illegal that you should think alcohol should be illegal. But, nobody advocates that position.

Somebody help me out here..... Originally Posted by timpage

It's not a matter of reconciliation. It’s realizing two ‘wrongs’ never make a ‘right’. Plus, there are still several, severe penalties for the improper use of alcohol. Which leads to the next point: is there a proper way to use c***k or m**h? Wouldn’t a retailer and the government – a government that receives revenue from and legitimizes the retailer’s right to sell the product – be held accountable for dependency related injuries and death? Certain drugs are notorious for causing the deaths of first time users. In regards to another illicit substance, how will the government regulate and tax a product that can be grown in a bathroom closet? ijs

Ron Paul is an isolationist and so am I. I'm not for taking it as far as Paul wants to, but that's what compromise is all about. I agree with a lot of his tenets though I wouldn't close Gitmo. If they weren't terrorists when they were brought to Gitmo, they are now.
Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Mr. Paul is not an isolationist. to call him that is an unfair label. what he is a non-interventionist. There is a big difference between the two.

GWB, Obama, McCain, Clinton were all interventionist.

Reasons to pick Paul over Obama - 0

Reasons to pick Paul over others -
1. Herman Cain
2. Michele Bachmann
3. Mitt Romney
4. John Huntsman
5. Rick Perry
6. Rick Santorum
7. Tim Pawlenty
8. Newt Gingrich
9. Newt Gingrich
10. Newt Gingrich
11. Newt Gingrich

You didn't read my post again, did you, Stevie?