Ron Paul`s 2002 Predictions All Came True

Submitted by: sr3nity 5 years ago in

Incredible!
There are 94 comments:
Male 379
@cracrjack
the only nerve you hit was my funny bone. i look at your opinions as exactly that as well, a joke. not to mention a dangerous continuation of the status quo. so i come back with equal ridiculousness. the difference is i don`t have serious, let alone, civil discussions on a website called "i am bored." when i want legitimate debates i choose to enter the real world and discuss things that might actually make a difference, rather than pretending i`m important by regurgitating rhetoric i saw on fox news on a .com website. which is why i am responding to a post a week later... because i don`t fill my time with f*uckwads like you. you are cancer.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: It`s an insult, but not vulgar, and it wasn`t aimed at you, so get over it.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Wait what bat5h17 crazy isn`t a vulgar insult?

That`s news.

No, now you`re just arguing (ad populum) semantics.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: `batsh|t crazy` is vulgar, really ?

Try as I might, couldn`t find either of those two words on list of vulgarities on the internet.

Perhaps part of the first word, `sh|t`, might be considered offensive if used alone or combined with words like head, face, for brains, etc... but batsh|t itself is not vulgar.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Calling anyone by a vulgar name is not civil discourse dude.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: so you took it personally even though it wasn`t aimed at you. Are you a relative of his or something ? If not then you shouldn`t act offended,
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Lillian: [quote]There`s a difference between taking campaign donations and being bought.[/quote]

Everyone can be `bought`, one way or another.

I`d like to think that wasn`t the case, but the pressure that can be brought to bear and the temptation of greed is too much to expect any human being to resist.

[quote]I`d argue that our media isn`t liberal for the most part, they`re controlled by money too.[/quote]

Surveys of journalists` self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]I believe Cajun lowered the conversation first, with "You wouldn`t know bat5h17 crazy if it formed a lynch mob outside of your house or if it was broadcast on national TV."[/quote]

You call Paul a bat5h17 crazy politician, I respond.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Obama`s job rating and polling numbers show that he looses the race to `a republican candidate` "
I`ve seen polls saying he`d beat out a Republican, so... As for that chart, I "slightly disapprove" of the job Obama`s done but I`d still vote for him over the other candidates.

"Every candidate in this election has taken campaign donations from corporations."
There`s a difference between taking campaign donations and being bought. It just so happens that usually the campaign donations end up influencing the opinions of the candidate. I don`t believe that`s true for Ron Paul (at least, not to the extent of every other candidate).

"Your opinion, on the first part, and the supposed `skeletons`, dug up and bought by the liberal media"
I`d argue that our media isn`t liberal for the most part, they`re controlled by money too. If someone has skeletons, expect them to jump on the opportunity to expose them.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Crakr: Some polls have Obama behind, others have him tied, others have him slightly ahead. A 3500 sample size is definitely the best, but it might not be quite as cut-and-dry as you claim. Link.
0
Reply
Male 39,948

@ CrakrJak - the problem with any indicators that Obama will `lose to a republican` is that it assumes a viable republican candidate. I dont` see one. I`d like to see one. If you have one put him out there! But to date, I don`t think any of the candidates are strong contenders.

But it`s 10 months away...lots can happen between now and November.
0
Reply
Male 126
Dr. Ron Paul the one Congressman the media is afraid to talk about. What if they only did?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Lillian: Answer #1 Obama`s job rating and polling numbers show that he looses the race to `a republican candidate`

Link

"he`s the only candidate (including Obama) who isn`t bought by corporations."
Every candidate in this election has taken campaign donations from corporations.

"All the current Republican candidates have insane ideas and a lot of skeletons in the closet."
Your opinion, on the first part, and the supposed `skeletons`, dug up and bought by the liberal medi
0
Reply
Male 182
I just realized I`ve been adding an extra "c" to your name this whole time. My bad.
0
Reply
Male 182
CrackrJak: What real world examples ?

Read my first post again. Repealing drug prohibition did wonders for Portugal and The Netherlands. These are facts. People didn`t go wild and do drugs just because they were legalized. In fact, use went down.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Really made me believe the rest of the conversation was hopeless, and I expressed my frustration in a manner that had already been aimed at me."

So, I have a different opinion than you. But you refuse to answer my questions (which, btw, if you could explain your opinions like I asked, you might have been able to change my opinion for all you know, but instead you quit the discussion through insults) and instead insult me because I have a different opinion than you. I didn`t aim anything like that at you, it was really uncalled for for you to do that to me instead of continuing the debate. So, even if 1 person is uncivil to you, that doesn`t mean you get a free pass to be uncivil to everyone else just because you`re "frustrated". I`d still like my questions answered, I feel they`re legitimate. o_O
0
Reply
Male 626
No mear man can know such things, burn him! Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live!
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Lillian: I believe Cajun lowered the conversation first, with "You wouldn`t know bat5h17 crazy if it formed a lynch mob outside of your house or if it was broadcast on national TV."

and then your response to my quote of, "He wants all prisoners convicted on drug charges to be freed nationwide."

Lillian, "Sounds good to me."

Really made me believe the rest of the conversation was hopeless, and I expressed my frustration in a manner that had already been aimed at me.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
smells like repost in here
0
Reply
Female 2,674
I`ve never tossed insults toward you that I can remember, and I apologize if I ever did, but at least in this post, Cajun, LazyMe, and myself were only speaking civily with you and yet we got those kinds of responses... (though I know at least cajun insulted you, but only after you made those comments xD)
0
Reply
Female 2,674
CrakrJak:
Maybe we have different opinions of what the word "civil" means?

Refusing to answer questions and saying it`s because:
"Some people don`t get it and never will, Cajun, Lillian, LAzyMe, and others are just a few.

Too cemented to their liberal ideologies to see anything past the nose on their face. "

and

"I`ve answered those questions before and it doesn`t make a difference, tired of debating people with skulls as thick brick walls."

Doesn`t really sound civil to me (especially the 2nd quote). Yeah they aren`t as bad as telling someone to kill themselves, but they aren`t conductive to proving your point, and they aren`t conductive to promoting a discussion, and they definitely don`t encourage people to want to debate with you in the future.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Thankfully, his chance at the republican nomination is nearing an end.[/quote]

Cuz apparently people don`t really care about the size of their government. Shame really
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: We just disagree, I see his plans as a disaster waiting to happen. Thankfully, his chance at the republican nomination is nearing an end.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Lillian: I do tolerate people and keep things civil, unless incivility is aimed at me, but even then there`s a line I won`t cross and suggesting someone commit suicide is way beyond the line.
0
Reply
Male 341
Repost is very Repost like
0
Reply
Male 525
Look how thin he was!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Letting loose everyone convicted of a drug crime would cause a spike in crime and combined with legalizing drugs and the sharp rise in unemployment due to military base closings, it would lead to riots.[/quote]

Not bat5h17 crazy considering how short-term those effects would be. As a matter of fact most soldiers from base closings would be transferred to other bases or reserves.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Letting loose everyone convicted of a drug crime would cause a spike in crime and combined with legalizing drugs[/quote]

Well I don`t think he said "everyone", only those without other criminal charges, and not violent drug-related crimes.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Pulling all our troops out of every country, even our NATO allies, would result in disaster[/quote]

How? If it would encourage them to actually beef up their own militaries then it wouldn`t be disastrous.

[quote]Ending all foreign aid, even the food aid we send to feed starving people, would be seen as cruel hearted and greedy by the rest of the world[/quote]

Foreign aid goes to the government and is which they use to support themselves and not their people. Food aid only robs local farmers of investments they themselves could use and encourages the recipients to hoard.
0
Reply
Male 39,948

CrakrJak - Prohibition gave us good things? You mean like the Mafia? Or the imprisonment of citizens for victimless crimes?

Jazz was there, it just coincidentally became popular at that time NOT because of prohibition. Women were campaigning for the vote world wide and would have gotten it. They got it in countries that didn`t have prohibition before they got here in "the land of the free".

NASCAR - yes a direct result of prohibition but one could argue RedNeck Fests are not a "good thing".
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Might I suggest that if you can`t tolerate a difference of opinion while keeping a civil tongue, perhaps you should go back to trolling 4chan."

I`d like to ask you to take your own advice, Crakr ^^
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: My main problem with Dr. Paul is that he believes he`s smarter than he really is.

Pulling all our troops out of every country, even our NATO allies, would result in disaster. Ending all foreign aid, even the food aid we send to feed starving people, would be seen as cruel hearted and greedy by the rest of the world. Letting loose everyone convicted of a drug crime would cause a spike in crime and combined with legalizing drugs and the sharp rise in unemployment due to military base closings, it would lead to riots.

Sorry, but that qualifies as bat sh|t crazy in my book.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: I see you got `roostered` by the cuss filter, it`s happened to me as well.

Anyways, alcoholism back then was rampant even among children, spousal abuse was way out of control, and people getting themselves and others killed in alcohol related accidents was all too common.

The temperance movement had good reasons and statistics to back them up, and the vast majority of people backed their efforts at the time. You say it caused more harm than good, but without it we wouldn`t have many things that we have today.

Jazz music, woman`s suffrage, cirrhosis of the liver declined, NASCAR, c*cktails, and several other good things happened because of America`s experiment with prohibition.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
FU<K YOU IAB CENSORS!!!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Furthermore, even if there was a drop in alcohol use, that is the WORST justification for the steep rise in crime. Lastly, many taverns back then, hidden from view as they were, had to use all sorts of tricks to hide their booze. So much so that rot gut alcohol was more prevalent than before. They even mixed pure alcohol in with other drinks, it`s how the <0<ktail was invented.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Despite the rise in crime from prohibition, the alcoholism rates country wide dropped. [/quote]

Actually alcoholism rates went up during prohibition. As for opening the floodgates, drug use isn`t going to skyrocket once those substances legalized, and Paul is strictly against the federal government banning substances. If the state of Texas wants to prohibit the sale and use of narcotics within its borders it is not an issue to Ron Paul.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: You have to look at it in the perspective of history. Alcoholism was tearing America apart back them. Rot gut alcohol was being brewed with no standards and no regulation. Despite the rise in crime from prohibition, the alcoholism rates country wide dropped.

Even when prohibition ended, the government left it to the individual localities, dry or wet counties, whether or not alcohol could be legally sold. Standards were set, inspectors hired, licensing established, intoxication laws strengthened, among many others.

the 21st. amendment didn`t open up the flood gates like Ron Paul wants to have happen with drugs.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@cityncolour: You are way, way out of line with that last hate-filled post. Everyone loses it once in awhile, but that`s what the "Delete Post" button`s for.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
As for legalization would the 21st amendment be "for quitters" as you put it? The drug wars were not ours to fight in the first place and in both cases of prohibition led to degradation of the rule of law.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Nothing worth fighting for is ever easy and giving up on making the world a better place is for losers.[/quote]

It is important to choose your battles carefully, something we have not taken seriously for the past 60 years. Non-interventionists also believe that the world can be made through free and open trade rather than extensive meddling in foreign affairs.

[quote]So go ahead and vote for Paul, it`s no different than rage quitting a video game, this `F*ck the rest of the world` attitude is what`s really wrong.[/quote]


WORST
ANALOGY
EVER!!!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Shall we use the example of Wilson`s isolationism in world war one or Roosevelt`s isolationism until Dec. 7th `41 ? Both left the USA a weak and easy target. Isolationism is for quitters, for those that believe the rest of the world is a lost cause. Drug legalization is the same, for quitters.[/quote]

Except that we had a sizable Navy back then and after a sneak attack we went from no standing army to an army equipped and mobilize to invade on TWO fronts within a year. Furthermore within that year we were already fighting the imperials. You`re right that isolationism is indeed for quitters, but you`re wrong about it being the desired policy. We want non-interventionism, simply put we trade but don`t occupy. Furthermore isolationism is non-interventionism and protectionism the latter we don`t want.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Draculya: If you have to ask permission to criticize those in power, civilly, then you`re not really a free person.

I fear no one, fear kills the mind and leads to hate, it`s ruined many a person`s life.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
cityncolour: My my, must`ve hit a nerve there with you to get that kind of vitriol.

Might I suggest that if you can`t tolerate a difference of opinion while keeping a civil tongue, perhaps you should go back to trolling 4chan.
0
Reply
Male 379
@CrakrJak
apparently you`re confused as to the difference between a suggestion and inquiry... but if that doesn`t `fly` might i `suggest` you go f*ck yourself then. god forbid i get banned... change my ip, then come back at you like a spider monkey. you`re a f*cking idiot, and everyone on here knows it. you`re wrong about... well pretty much everything, which is why you spend so much of your time arguing with half-wits over the internet. in this case in particular, you`re just flat wrong about dr. paul`s policies. you half-dead, fat f*uck, get a life.

...and then go kill yourself.
0
Reply
Female 2,289
Ron Paul 2012.

He better win.
0
Reply
Male 15,271
Crakr takes on the entire mod team.
0
Reply
Male 1,089
i would have to take crackrjak`s side here. i got turned off from iab for quite some time because it was annoyingly liberal. i`m back, mostly just out of boredom tho haha.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
davymid: IF that`s your way of saying my submissions were boring, I heartily disagree. In fact of the duller stuff I submit seems to have the most success in being posted.

Thank you for being honest about it, but please don`t claim `balance` anymore. Just do some simple counting and you`ll find the anti-republican stuff out numbers the anti-democrat stuff at least 3 to 1.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Works like this - We get loads of submissions, a lot of it crap, a lot of it spam. Hold on, I`ll check the current number, at time of posting this comment: 400 submissions in the queue. We post about new items 20 a day, right? So we Mods trawl through and delete all the stuff we think might be boring.

Thus, if your submitted link disappears from the live submissions list, it`s because it didn`t make the top 0.5% cut for that day. The reason your submissions have "mysteriously disappeared" is because it was deleted. Bearing in mind here that you`re contesting against "Awww of the Day", "Photos of Randomness", "This is what you`re missing on TV" and others.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]davymid: The problem I`ve ran into Davy is that several of my submissions have suddenly and mysteriously disappeared off the `Live Submissions` list in the past, and I mean within a few hours of their submission. Gone, like they never existed, like someone is erasing them so that they never get seen by other mods or even get a chance to be approved.

Seems to happen, mostly ,very early in the morning. I just took it as a sign of editorial control, after all it`s not my website, I don`t own it. But to claim a `balanced` view, with that type of submission erasing going on, is rather contrary.[/quote]
Hold on, that`s just exactly what happens when we Mods trawl the submission feed. If your submissions were "Gone, like they never existed, like someone is erasing them", that`s because they are. It`s exactly what we do. It`s exactly editorial control. Otherwise the site would be overrun with spambots.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
cityncolour: You`re seriously suggesting I commit suicide, that doesn`t fly around here.

Go back under your bridge before you get banned for saying that sort of crap.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
davymid: The problem I`ve ran into Davy is that several of my submissions have suddenly and mysteriously disappeared off the `Live Submissions` list in the past, and I mean within a few hours of their submission. Gone, like they never existed, like someone is erasing them so that they never get seen by other mods or even get a chance to be approved.

Seems to happen, mostly ,very early in the morning. I just took it as a sign of editorial control, after all it`s not my website, I don`t own it. But to claim a `balanced` view, with that type of submission erasing going on, is rather contrary.
0
Reply
Male 379
@CrakrJak
you haven`t killed yourself yet? i guess there`s really no way we could get that lucky, huh..?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Baal: I guess you haven`t heard, but Ron Paul wants to recall all of our military from around the world and end all foreign aid, that would be isolationism.

And that would leave Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and your tiny country at the mercy of Iran.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
This one was a repost, yes, but we f*ck up all the time on here (we`re like 12 people, all volunteers except Fancy, 3 or 4 of which who regularly approve posts, me not among them).

If Ron Paul is featured more than most Republican Candidates, it`s because posts around him and his ethos are relatively *interesting*, and therefore relieving of boredom, which is all we`re trying to achieve here. Not because I-A-B is trying to promote any kind of political agenda, one way or the other.

Maybe the member-base leans more towards one side or the other, but that`s out of our control. Neither to we admonish or control comments, or threaten with ban any user from any political spectrum. Surely you can understand why I find your insinuation that the majority of I-A-B is run by liberals and therefore biased in terms of site content kinda hurtful. I think we do a decent job here, personally.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]a1butcher: You have to understand that liberals pretty much run the majority of IAB, and since Obama is going to loose, many have jumped ship to the most bat sh|t crazy republican in the race.

Thus all the Ron Paul submissions and reposts.[/quote]
Woah, hold the phone there CJ. That`s a pretty serious accusation to make and kind of personally insulting. I think we do a pretty good job here at I-A-B of trying to be as impartial as possible and representing all viewpoints for discussion. Check e.g. 5Cats` profile for his approved submissions which have appeared here, loaded as they are with right-wing political language in the front-page description. I-A-B (I think) is very much an open-forum discussion.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
The act of not having 50% of the entire world`s military expenditure and having fixed military in about 30% of the globe is not isolationism.

Just because I`m not over at your place drating your wife, doesn`t mean I`m a hermit.

Your terms need work.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
aroc91: [quote]you just don`t want to explain yourself because real-world examples have already proven you wrong.[/quote]

What real world examples ?

Shall we use the example of Wilson`s isolationism in world war one or Roosevelt`s isolationism until Dec. 7th `41 ? Both left the USA a weak and easy target. Isolationism is for quitters, for those that believe the rest of the world is a lost cause. Drug legalization is the same, for quitters.

Nothing worth fighting for is ever easy and giving up on making the world a better place is for losers.

So go ahead and vote for Paul, it`s no different than rage quitting a video game, this `F*ck the rest of the world` attitude is what`s really wrong.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Not much to add except:

(1) Paul`s predictions weren`t *all* correct: interest rates, for example, haven`t soared.

(2) I have no idea who I`m going to vote for. I`m so disgusted with Obama that I`ve been leaning toward a write-in so I can at least vote my conscience. But lately I`ve been thinking how old Justice Ginsberg is and the thought of a Romney- or Gingrich-appointed justice is hard to stomach.

(3) Lillian, you seem pretty sharp, so I might follow your lead. But at the moment, I really don`t think I can vote for Obama. ~sigh~

(4) I wish some of you guys would stop with the name-calling and insults. This place is *so close* to being a great place to discuss ideas with others of different viewpoints.

CrakrJak, who are you planning to vote for--Romney or Gingrich, whoever prevails?
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Anybody with common sense could also predict all this
0
Reply
Male 182
CrackrJak, you just don`t want to explain yourself because real-world examples have already proven you wrong.
0
Reply
Male 646
It`s incredible in the unbelievable sense, except for the fanboy cultists.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Oooh. Lots of good discussion in this thread, guys. I`m going to read while having dinner. Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Gerry: That pic was hilarious. I LOL`ed. Thanks, man.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
Man, Ron Paul is a guy who I want to disagree with but find impossible. He hates liberals like we`re the scum of the earth but dammit he`s always RIGHT!
0
Reply
Male 541
He must be from the future.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] tired of debating people with skulls as thick brick walls[/quote]

You wouldn`t know such a skull if it was transplanted into your head.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Too cemented to their liberal ideologies to see anything past the nose on their face.[/quote]

...and you are a blithering neocon nutjob who supports unconstitutional bureaucracies to regulate consensual behavoir and unrestrained meddling in foreign affairs. PS I`m libertarian, socially liberal yet fiscally conservative. I believe I`ve even distinguished myself as being more fiscally conservative than you are making you look like a new deal advocate. Lastly that comment I say Gerry has more rights to his conservative label than YOU do.
0
Reply
Male 151
@CrakrJak

You really couldn`t be more wrong in your assumptions on anything. In no way, shape, or form would I consider myself a liberal or a conservative. First, if Paul were to lose the Republican Primary, he hasn`t ruled out Independent. In this way, he`d easily be a threat to both Obama and Romney, snatching a majority of Tea Partiers and a good amount of Obama fence riders. People who aren`t necessarily Democrats, but just disliked George Bush enough to vote against any Republican and those just completely turned off by the thought of Palin as VP. Second, your only argument here is his isolationist ideal (which would be much better for us) and his views on legalizing drugs. I don`t know if you understand this, but we spend millions upon millions of dollars fighting the Drug War and wasting every single cent of it. Your idea that any action he may be able to take leading to anarchy is foolish. The direction we`re going will lead to that as seen by the massive protes
0
Reply
Male 219
>It doesn`t matter, Paul is not going to win, end of conversation.

Hey look CrakrJak is making a generalized prediction based on simple math.

also end of coversation is what douchebags say when they realize they can`t back up their point so they make one statement and say it

end of conversation
0
Reply
Male 219
Bill Clinton 2012!
0
Reply
Male 17,511
It doesn`t matter, Paul is not going to win, end of conversation.

I`ve answered those questions before and it doesn`t make a difference, tired of debating people with skulls as thick brick walls.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Maybe he has special powers
0
Reply
Female 2,674
CrakrJak, I asked you questions. You so far have refused to answer. How will I ever be able to "get it" if you refuse to explain yourself and defend your position?
0
Reply
Male 182
Answer the question. Stop deflecting.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
:Sigh:

Some people don`t get it and never will, Cajun, Lillian, LAzyMe, and others are just a few.

Too cemented to their liberal ideologies to see anything past the nose on their face.

He`s not going to win the primary anyways, it`s going to be a battle between Gringrich and Romney from here on out.
0
Reply
Male 182
CrakrJak-

"He`s still an isolationist that wants all drugs legalized, even heroin, cocaine, and meth. He wants all prisoners convicted on drug charges to be freed nationwide.

The above would create such societal chaos that it would lead to anarchy, yet he doesn`t have the clairvoyance to see that now does he ?"

By what logic or precedent do you make this claim? It`s worked very, very well in The Netherlands and Portugal. Drug use actually dropped when it happened in those countries.
0
Reply
Male 39,948

I`m tired of this thread so I`ll just post something unrelated....


0
Reply
Male 10,440
I agree with LillianDulci.

Aside from Obama, he`s your best option.

And by best I mean barely passable, as opposed to the others who would be complete failures.

If they choose anyone other than Paul, that will overload the dems with ammunition.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"and since Obama is going to loose"

And what leads you to /this/ conclusion? All the current Republican candidates have insane ideas and a lot of skeletons in the closet. I`m not extremely happy with the job Obama has done (he gives in way way way too easily) but he`s still the best candidate for the next election, especially since Republicans don`t seem to have a solid candidate and general opinion keeps switching week to week. I consider Ron Paul the 2nd best option, only because he`s the only candidate (including Obama) who isn`t bought by corporations. That doesn`t mean he doesn`t have some insane ideas, though. He just has more good ideas than the other Republican candidates, imo.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"He`s still an isolationist that wants all drugs legalized, even heroin, cocaine, and meth."
And? People should be able to do what they want with their body, as disgusting or harmful as it may be. People aren`t going to suddenly decide to do meth just because it`s legal.

"He wants all prisoners convicted on drug charges to be freed nationwide."
Sounds good to me.

"The above would create such societal chaos that it would lead to anarchy, yet he doesn`t have the clairvoyance to see that now does he ?"
What leads you to this conclusion? A sudden release of people who shouldn`t have been jailed in the first place might initially be bad, but leading to anarchy...?

His stance on drugs is one of the very few things I agree with him about. And this is coming from someone who doesn`t do any drugs, not even alcohol (well.. I consume a little caffeine every day, but besides that).
0
Reply
Male 10,855


OVERPOST!



POSTTACULAR!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Ron Paul simply has an appeal that both sides can see. He`s honest, says what he means and has a consistent voting record that doesn`t get bought by big corporation `donations`.[/quote]

Not to mention how much of a Leninesque Conservative Neeewwwtt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]He`s still an isolationist[/quote]

Wrong, I`ve already said why before and I won`t repeat.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Generalized predictions that any hack TV psychic could`ve made at the time.[/quote]

Generalized predictions many other respected pundits were making at the time.

[quote]The above would create such societal chaos that it would lead to anarchy, yet he doesn`t have the clairvoyance to see that now does he ?[/quote]

He doesn`t need it as he knows as it would be short-term and a nuisance at best.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]many have jumped ship to the most bat sh|t crazy republican in the race.[/quote]


You wouldn`t know bat5h17 crazy if it formed a lynch mob outside of your house or if it was broadcast on national TV.
0
Reply
Male 79
Crakr, Liberals haven`t `jumped ship`, and the way the republican party is so divided, I doubt highly that obama is going to lose. Ron Paul simply has an appeal that both sides can see. He`s honest, says what he means and has a consistent voting record that doesn`t get bought by big corporation `donations`. As a democrat, I would vote for Paul against Obama simply because of his policies and how much I like the man. He`s simply the best candidate in this election, however Obama still beats the hell out of any other republican besides him.
0
Reply
Male 118
Loving that faint `Inception` music in the background
0
Reply
Male 17,511
a1butcher: You have to understand that liberals pretty much run the majority of IAB, and since Obama is going to loose, many have jumped ship to the most bat sh|t crazy republican in the race.

Thus all the Ron Paul submissions and reposts.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
If he`s so smart, how come he`s a fundamentalist evolution denier?
0
Reply
Male 4,807
I don`t usually do this but yea... 01/14/2012... Last week.
0
Reply
Male 39,948

And your point is . . . ?

I saw the bank and real estate collaps coming but that does not make me qualified to be president. It just means I`m observant.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Generalized predictions that any hack TV psychic could`ve made at the time. That doesn`t make him special or correct in any other way. He`s still an isolationist that wants all drugs legalized, even heroin, cocaine, and meth. He wants all prisoners convicted on drug charges to be freed nationwide.

The above would create such societal chaos that it would lead to anarchy, yet he doesn`t have the clairvoyance to see that now does he ?
0
Reply
Male 53
0
Reply