Ron Paul climbs in the polls

  On 12/25/2011 at 7:21 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/24/2011 at 11:52 PM, eugene said:

not at all, change it to the original wording ("legalize drugs") if it makes it more comfortable.

Legalization of marijuana alone would have huge benefits. It's the US's biggest cash crop.

how did you reach that conclusion ?

lmgtfy http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003482836_marijuana18.html

Also, legalized hemp production would be awesome. Such a great material.

  On 12/25/2011 at 9:32 AM, eugene said:

  On 12/25/2011 at 7:21 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/24/2011 at 11:52 PM, eugene said:

not at all, change it to the original wording ("legalize drugs") if it makes it more comfortable.

Legalization of marijuana alone would have huge benefits. It's the US's biggest cash crop.

how did you reach that conclusion ?

As well as the link that A/D provided there are BBC link, ABC link and as regards the positive benefit to the US federal budget, well here's a Harvard economist (who is not very leftist judging from his other articles regarding economics) who says the US government could reap something like 35 billion in revenue from the legalization of drugs, and reduce expenditures by about 48 billion. That's a swing of 83 billion dollars. Here's the PDF.

i actually misunderstood the meaning of "cash crop", thought it's something metaphorical. basically the question is whether legalizing drugs the most efficient way to free up cash for something like healthcare, something that warrants putting it at #1 on voter's "things i want my president to do" list.

The sick tend to be less active voters and the healthy tend to not focus on being sick. Add the complexity of the issue of healthcare in general and you've got a recipe for something the masses do not want to think about unless it's (almost) too late (meaning: healthcare budget eating up the entire budget).

edit: nvmind this post. just another brainfart

  On 12/25/2011 at 10:59 AM, eugene said:

i actually misunderstood the meaning of "cash crop", thought it's something metaphorical. basically the question is whether legalizing drugs the most efficient way to free up cash for something like healthcare, something that warrants putting it at #1 on voter's "things i want my president to do" list.

It is a means to freeing up cash, and probably a decent one though certainly not the only means. There is never going to be a single "most-efficient" way. To think that there is only one optimal solution is ridiculous.

If you read the post i made a bit earlier about the various benefits that legalizing drugs would provide, I'd like to think you could understand that it's a complex issue with far-reaching consequences in the social sphere.

you make it sound as if there shouldn't be any cost-benefit analysis. suppose that legalizing weed will provide everything that you've mentioned, but then some islamo-communist like obama will tax the rich which can bring much more cash but obviously with different social consequences, but then there's also much more support for taxing the rich than legalization and so on. that's the kind of logic that should guide the voter i think. yourself is a good example actually, you realize the benefits of legalization but also point at the serious disadvantages of pauls ideology, consequently crossing him out as a candidate.

the way hoodie put it initially makes it look very shortsighted and kinda selfish, as if there's complete utopia after legalization takes effect.

um, i never mentioned the actual consequences of legalization, so how did you get the idea that i was implying it would lead to utopia? i just said it was important to me and suggested you read up on it.

I think it might be a language thing with eugene cause i don't get his thought process most of the time.

  On 12/25/2011 at 4:43 PM, Hoodie said:

um, i never mentioned the actual consequences of legalization, so how did you get the idea that i was implying it would lead to utopia? i just said it was important to me and suggested you read up on it.

it's just a figure of speech and exaggeration on my part, don't pay attention. my issue is with that strange hierarchy of issues of yours.

the high point of his career was almost being molested by Sasha Baron Cohen, lol

I've heard a lot of people state that Ron Paul's platform includes a lot of insane ideas. Does anyone care to elaborate? I feel like the man is the the most sane republican I've seen in years. Sure, some of his views conflict with one another, but I feel that people jump the gun and conclude that he's pressing his beliefs as things he would push for if elected. I believe him when he says he'd work for smaller government/less regulation, but some of his values he puts out there regardless of the fact of whether or not he'd actually push legislation to push his ideals on the country as a whole.

  On 12/25/2011 at 2:04 PM, eugene said:

you make it sound as if there shouldn't be any cost-benefit analysis.

The paper by the Harvard economics professor is exactly that.

  On 12/25/2011 at 5:36 PM, umop_apisdn said:

I've heard a lot of people state that Ron Paul's platform includes a lot of insane ideas. Does anyone care to elaborate?

I'll tell you what I don't agree with -

Lifting restrictions on drilling for oil (this is one of the only truly irreversible things he could do . . destroy national parks)

Making abortion a states' rights issue

Shutting down DEP, the Dept of Ed, and welfare

Military emphasis on USA borders, anti-immigration in general

Ending ALL foreign aid (though I understand his reservations)

Pro-coal

Anti-healthcare (& everything else you'd expect from a Libertarian type dude)

his website, ronpaul2012.com, is comprehensive on his ideas, though not execution. Pretty easy to get an idea there of what he stands for.

  On 12/25/2011 at 6:32 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/25/2011 at 2:04 PM, eugene said:

you make it sound as if there shouldn't be any cost-benefit analysis.

 

The paper by the Harvard economics professor is exactly that.

you tore that quote out of the context, i meant cost-benefit analysis in the larger scale, when deliberating between candidates to support. you can apply it to your own example, paul is willing to legalize drugs but he might fuck up the whole economy up with his isolation tendencies. i'll trust you and others on the benefits of legalization.

  On 12/25/2011 at 6:59 PM, eugene said:

  On 12/25/2011 at 6:32 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/25/2011 at 2:04 PM, eugene said:

you make it sound as if there shouldn't be any cost-benefit analysis.

 

The paper by the Harvard economics professor is exactly that.

you tore that quote out of the context, i meant cost-benefit analysis in the larger scale, when deliberating between candidates to support. you can apply it to your own example, paul is willing to legalize drugs but he might fuck up the whole economy up with his isolation tendencies. i'll trust you and others on the benefits of legalization.

when people call Paul an isolationist, what do they mean by that exactly? he doesn't want to engage in trade with other sovereign nations? Or do you guys mean a non-interventionist because of a lack of militarism and hence that must equate to the United States barring itself from the rest of the world?

  On 12/25/2011 at 5:32 PM, Rubin Farr said:

the high point of his career was almost being molested by Sasha Baron Cohen, lol

i always wondered why Cohen chose Ron Paul, not Rick Santorum or some other senator or congress man who actually makes a career trying to demonize homosexuals and then i remembered Paul's stance on israel and that Cohen is a strong israel supporter.

one example he used to affiliate with this group http://en.wikipedia....ki/Habonim_Dror

following this logic noam chomsky is also a "strong israel supporter" because he also lived in israel and supported a socialist-zionist movement called ha-shomer ha-tzair..which is actually affiliated with habonim dror.

  On 12/25/2011 at 6:59 PM, eugene said:

  On 12/25/2011 at 6:32 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/25/2011 at 2:04 PM, eugene said:

you make it sound as if there shouldn't be any cost-benefit analysis.

 

The paper by the Harvard economics professor is exactly that.

you tore that quote out of the context, i meant cost-benefit analysis in the larger scale, when deliberating between candidates to support. you can apply it to your own example, paul is willing to legalize drugs but he might fuck up the whole economy up with his isolation tendencies. i'll trust you and others on the benefits of legalization.

Then you need to be clearer with what you mean when you say "cost-benefit analysis". You said cost-benefit analysis and then went on some spiel about obama being an islamo-communist and taxing the rich (which by the way would increase revenues about 50-60 billion a year according to various analyses around the web, so a bit less than legalizing drugs). It's not a cut and dry proposition. You can't have only one answer. It needs to be a combination of increasing revenue and cutting expenditures.

Smetty - it's a bit of both - more non-interventionist, but he definitely favours economic isolation policies.

  On 12/25/2011 at 9:46 PM, eugene said:

following this logic noam chomsky is also a "strong israel supporter"

except Cohen actually is one, what i listed is merely the tip of the iceberg. And i really see no reason to single out ron paul for something like that unless coincidentally he was the only one out of 50 socially conservative representatives who agreed to do it. rick santorum and a countless others would have made more sense if youre trying to get some kind of homophobic reaction out of somebody.

i don't understand why would you claim something by using an especially weak argument, the group he has been affiliated with is ideologically opposite to the recent israeli governments.

bring some stronger proof then.

plolitics subforums pls

  On 12/25/2011 at 10:24 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/25/2011 at 6:59 PM, eugene said:

  On 12/25/2011 at 6:32 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/25/2011 at 2:04 PM, eugene said:

you make it sound as if there shouldn't be any cost-benefit analysis.

 

The paper by the Harvard economics professor is exactly that.

you tore that quote out of the context, i meant cost-benefit analysis in the larger scale, when deliberating between candidates to support. you can apply it to your own example, paul is willing to legalize drugs but he might fuck up the whole economy up with his isolation tendencies. i'll trust you and others on the benefits of legalization.

Then you need to be clearer with what you mean when you say "cost-benefit analysis". You said cost-benefit analysis and then went on some spiel about obama being an islamo-communist and taxing the rich (which by the way would increase revenues about 50-60 billion a year according to various analyses around the web, so a bit less than legalizing drugs). It's not a cut and dry proposition. You can't have only one answer. It needs to be a combination of increasing revenue and cutting expenditures.

 

Smetty - it's a bit of both - more non-interventionist, but he definitely favours economic isolation policies.

but i mean economic isolation how? that would seem retarded for anyone to suggest that.

wouldn't economic isolationism imply tons of protective tariffs? isn't ron paul against that?

  On 12/25/2011 at 9:46 PM, eugene said:

following this logic noam chomsky is also a "strong israel supporter" because he also lived in israel and supported a socialist-zionist movement called ha-shomer ha-tzair..which is actually affiliated with habonim dror.

you know what he meant by that=zionism, or the right of the Jewish people to have their own state. knock it the fuck off.

I've got his signs in my yard.