The Staw poll is over. Now who?


BeauRyker

New member
Lol, you have been outwitted by us keyboard warriors.

Yeah, that's right. I've been "outwitted".:biggrin: I guess I'll go back to the Justin Bieber board and see if I can get rid of all this meth I've been stockpiling. Was gonna make a killing if R.Paul:wacko: had a chance of getting elected, but.......oh well...:fie:
 

Chief1297

New member
I think I'll leave all the more "intelligent" people here to argue about this. I just don't have the smarts.

I didnt mean to imply that people paying attention were to stupid to figure him out but you have to admit that the average American cant even tell reporters who the VP is has to make you wonder. Even people paying attention cant seem to get his stances on issues like drug legalization as evident in this thread. I also didnt mean to imply that he has a hope of getting elected as I think the writing on the wall is pretty clear. I hope you didnt take offense.
 

BC1

,
Actually, it's a very good argument. We don't punish ALL drinkers for the actions of the irresponsible ones, and neither should we punish ALL recreational drug users for the actions of the irresponsible ones. All drinkers don't become wife-beating alcoholics, and all users of marijuana, meth, cocaine, and heroin don't steal from others to support their habits.
Drugs like meth and crack pretty much eat you alive. Your teeth rot, you give up anything for a hit on that pipe. You can't work. Your actions become erratic and unpredictable because the drug is the most important thing in your life. Your kids suffer without responsible parents. Drug users and their kids put a larger burden on social services, something America already has enough of. If you can't work how will you suppoort your meth habit? Very simple... crime, welfare and social security disability. These drugs can turn an honor-roll student into a skinny, dysfunctional, sore-covered heap of pus. And do you really want legal crackheads and meth users behind you in traffic? There is no such thing as just one hit on a crack or meth pipe. As one addict says, one hit and I'm a new man. The first thing the new man wants is another hit. We're not talking about marijuana and alcohol... we're talking about some of the most addictive substances ever known to man. Want to give that meth user a CCW? Think about it hard.
 

BC1

,
Actually, not a good point. He doesnt want to legalize drugs. he wants to let the states decide...BIG DIFFERENCE.
Same outcome. Crackheads and tweekers. Very few people can use meth or crack casually. Most will addict to those drugs.

When I hear Ron Paul make those statements combined with blaming America for Iran and wanting to give terrorists a trial I shudder. I always liked the man. Now I think he's as bad as Obummer, only in the other direction. Doesn't matter. He's not going anywhere.

Perry/Bachman might be the ideal team.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Drugs like meth and crack pretty much eat you alive. Your teeth rot, you give up anything for a hit on that pipe. You can't work. Your actions become erratic and unpredictable because the drug is the most important thing in your life. Your kids suffer without responsible parents. Drug users and their kids put a larger burden on social services, something America already has enough of. If you can't work how will you suppoort your meth habit? Very simple... crime, welfare and social security disability. These drugs can turn an honor-roll student into a skinny, dysfunctional, sore-covered heap of pus. And do you really want legal crackheads and meth users behind you in traffic? There is no such thing as just one hit on a crack or meth pipe. As one addict says, one hit and I'm a new man. The first thing the new man wants is another hit. We're not talking about marijuana and alcohol... we're talking about some of the most addictive substances ever known to man. Want to give that meth user a CCW? Think about it hard.

As I said earlier, only when they resort to crime to support their habits should law enforcement get involved. If they're not engaged in crime to support their habit, why should they get arrested? They're hurting no one but themselves, and inflicting harm to yourself should NOT be a crime.
 

saintjerome

New member
Rick Perry is not our hope, Ron Paul is the only honest man running,

So much mis-information about Ron Paul and Rick Perry. Visit Ron's website to see what he is really saying. www.ronpaul2012.com

Rick Perry? Our hope? consservative? Tea Party? Hardly..

If Rick Perry is going to successfully project the image of a god-fearing Christian Tea Party Republican, he will have to put distance between himself and Al Gore.

In 1988, Perry not only supported Gore, he was his campaign manager in Texas. After Gore lost to Michael Dukakis and then Dukakis lost the election in a landslide to Bush Senior, Perry jumped parties. He became a Republican in 1989.

During a an interview on Des Moines-based WHO on Monday, Perry said he worked with Gore “before he invented the Internet and got to be Mr. Global Warming.” Growing up in rural Texas, Perry said “I never met a Republican until I was 25… In 1988 when you looked at the candidates, Al Gore was the most conservative candidate that was out there.”

Either Perry wasn’t paying attention or he is trying to lie his way out of his past association with Gore. In April of 1987, according to Politico, Gore was already preaching his warmist mantra.

“He laid out a broad list of national objectives, from combating AIDS and Alzheimer’s disease to curbing the ‘greenhouse effect’ — the threat to the Earth’s atmosphere from the burning of oil, gas and coal,” The Los Angeles Times reported in covering Gore’s announcement. In May 1987, according to The Washington Post, his stump speeches included a call for the nation to “confront the emerging problems of the greenhouse effect and the threat to our ozone,” notes Politico.

Perry was grilled on other issues during the interview. He declared he was “motivated by a sincere desire to stop cancer” when he issued an executive order in 2007 ordering every girl in Texas to get a Gardasil vaccine before the sixth grade. Cancer and the safety of school girls came in a distant second to a $6,000 campaign contribution by pharma giant Merck and the transnational corporation’s hiring of former Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work. Fortunately, Texas lawmakers blocked Perry’s effort to inject girls with the deadly vaccine.


Perry worked for Al Gore and other facts.

He dismissed the NAFTA superhighway as a “myth” cooked up by conspiracy theorists. Perry didn’t mention the fact he received substantial campaign contributions from the companies pushing for the globalist highway stretching from the Texas-Mexico border to the Minnesota-Canadian border. Perry was the only gubernatorial candidate in 2006 of four major candidates who supported it. Even the Democratic candidate opposed it.



He said his support for turning over Texas roads to a foreign corporation – Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transport – was motivated by an effort to save Texans from additional taxation and having to crawl to the “the asphalt fairy” in Washington to get roads built.

Remarkably, during the radio interview, he was grilled about his association with the Bilderberg Group. Perry said he agreed to attend the secret globalist confab out of curiosity. “I found it to be an interesting group of people. I have yet to find out why they want to keep it a secret,” he said. “I haven’t been invited back and that was 5 years ago, so I guess I didn’t impress them.”

“Speculation that Perry is the Bilderberg group’s ace card was prompted by the current political climate, which can largely be gleaned from the fact that Perry is a longtime, unwavering supporter of the NAFTA Superhighway and related infrastructure projects,” wrote AFP’s Jim Tucker in June, following Perry’s appearance at the Bilderberg meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2007.


Ron Paul: Rick Perry represents the establishment.

Perry’s association with the warmist guru Al Gore, his efforts to push through the NAFTA superhighway for the globalists, and his eagerness to implement the eugenics agenda of the elite by forcing school girls to take a deadly vaccine reveals that he is the preferred candidate of the international bankster plutocracy.

Rick Perry may believe his interview with a local radio station in Iowa will put to rest the avalanche of evidence that he is anything but a good old boy from Texas, a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, a Tea Party patriot and an avowed enemy of the federal government.

Now that he has grabbed center stage and will likely emerge as the establishment Republican candidate to challenge the establishment Democrat Barry Obama, the corporate media will oblige him and only throw softballs in his direction.
 

BeauRyker

New member
In theory, that sounds wonderful, tattedupboy. In reality, it's bs. It's NEVER just personal. When they affect themselves, who pays the bills? Insurance? Medicals? Fire Depts? Lawyers? Cities? Street sweepers to sweep 'em out of the gutter? People that take their bodies to the morgue? Drivers that unintentionally get in their way? THEIR insurance, medicals, fire depts., police, ambulances, families?

Nope, it's the taxpayers. And the decent people who have to deal with this scum that destroys their towns and cities. It's the families that they hit headon on the highways. JUST LIKE DRUNKS. The same people that we have to pay to deal with drunks, we'd have to pay to deal with dope heads.

Obviously you want it all legalized, so you really haven't thought out all the repercussions. Maybe you don't care about the repercussions as long as it is legalized. Is it that important to you? There's alot more people involved than just some moron sticking the needle in his arm.
 

BeauRyker

New member
etc, etc, etc, etc

If you believe all of the bs in your post, it's real simple. DON'T VOTE FOR HIM! If you did, and things didn't turn out to satisfy your rainbow and fairy tail dreams, all you'd do is ***** and moan anyway. Everybody here will figure things out for themselves, and do what they're comfortable doing. There aren't too many fools on this board.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Hello! It's illegal now and everything you say will be the negative repercussions of legalization is already happening. What difference will legalization make? None, except to recognize that drug use and possession is not something a person should get arrested for.

While technically states have this right under the Tenth Amendment to decide this, in my opinion states are no more entitled to infringe upon individual liberty than the federal government is. Remember the Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (I believe it was from 2003) in which the Court struck down Texas's sodomy law? Again, technically, while the Constitution is silent on sodomy (which makes it a state issue by default), the government(whether state, federal, or local) has no business telling consenting adults what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their bedrooms. And, just as I've said repeatesly before, how exactly do Texans benefit when the police arrest two people engaged in this behavior in the privacy of their bedrooms? Zero! It just makes criminals of people who haven't harmed anyone.
 

weekendskp

New member
Hello! It's illegal now and everything you say will be the negative repercussions of legalization is already happening. What difference will legalization make? None, except to recognize that drug use and possession is not something a person should get arrested for.
. . . .
Zero! It just makes criminals of people who haven't harmed anyone.

Furthermore, in no instance does the law or statute prevent the crime. Missouri passed legislation making it illegal for teacher to "friend" student on social media sites like Facebook under the guise of "preventing inappropriate relations between the two parties". Some instances of this have been occurring since the dawn of time, and no law is going to prevent it. Those people who already know and believe one shouldn't engage in inappropriate activity, don't. Don't criminalize the general population for the acts of a few. I don't know who it was that said, "You can't legislate morality."
 

BC1

,
Hello! It's illegal now and everything you say will be the negative repercussions of legalization is already happening. What difference will legalization make? None, except to recognize that drug use and possession is not something a person should get arrested for.

While technically states have this right under the Tenth Amendment to decide this, in my opinion states are no more entitled to infringe upon individual liberty than the federal government is. Remember the Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (I believe it was from 2003) in which the Court struck down Texas's sodomy law? Again, technically, while the Constitution is silent on sodomy (which makes it a state issue by default), the government(whether state, federal, or local) has no business telling consenting adults what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their bedrooms. And, just as I've said repeatesly before, how exactly do Texans benefit when the police arrest two people engaged in this behavior in the privacy of their bedrooms? Zero! It just makes criminals of people who haven't harmed anyone.
But we can't compare sodomy to meth and crack. Sodomy is not an addictive issue that statistically has been shown by the U.S. Department of justice to raise the potential for criminal activities or burden the social services of America. Supporting data is abundant... not just drug arrests, but arrests for child neglect, theft and associated violence, A tweeker will do what he must for the next hit on the pipe. He has lost the ability to control the addiction and it takes over his life. Much different than, say, marijuana, which I have no problem with legalizing. It's already the biggest cash-crop in America anyway.

Most imprtantly, I don't want a tweeker or crackhead behind me in traffic or exercising his constitutional rights to bear arms when his judgement is so significantly impaired that he can't work or maintain a social, economic or socio-economic standard. Conceptually this is insane thinking to suggest he is still a contributing, safe member of society.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
But we can't compare sodomy to meth and crack. Sodomy is not an addictive issue that statistically has been shown by the U.S. Department of justice to raise the potential for criminal activities or burden the social services of America. Supporting data is abundant... not just drug arrests, but arrests for child neglect, theft and associated violence, A tweeker will do what he must for the next hit on the pipe. He has lost the ability to control the addiction and it takes over his life. Much different than, say, marijuana, which I have no problem with legalizing. It's already the biggest cash-crop in America anyway.

Most imprtantly, I don't want a tweeker or crackhead behind me in traffic or exercising his constitutional rights to bear arms when his judgement is so significantly impaired that he can't work or maintain a social, economic or socio-economic standard. Conceptually this is insane thinking to suggest he is still a contributing, safe member of society.

So EVERY single user of crack, meth, and heroin steals to support their habit and neglects their kids? And for users who don't do those things, why should they be arrested? Who are they hurting?
 

gunnerbob

PEW Professional
But we can't compare sodomy to meth and crack. Sodomy is not an addictive issue that statistically has been shown by the U.S. Department of justice to raise the potential for criminal activities or burden the social services of America. Supporting data is abundant... not just drug arrests, but arrests for child neglect, theft and associated violence, A tweeker will do what he must for the next hit on the pipe. He has lost the ability to control the addiction and it takes over his life. Much different than, say, marijuana, which I have no problem with legalizing. It's already the biggest cash-crop in America anyway.

Most imprtantly, I don't want a tweeker or crackhead behind me in traffic or exercising his constitutional rights to bear arms when his judgement is so significantly impaired that he can't work or maintain a social, economic or socio-economic standard. Conceptually this is insane thinking to suggest he is still a contributing, safe member of society.


What makes you think there isn't already tweekers & crackheads behind you in traffic and exercising his right to bear arms?
 

BC1

,
So EVERY single user of crack, meth, and heroin steals to support their habit and neglects their kids? And for users who don't do those things, why should they be arrested? Who are they hurting?
What makes you think there isn't already tweekers & crackheads behind you in traffic and exercising his right to bear arms?
I understand the position but the experts pretty much agree on the addiction side. Very hard to use and not get addicted to those drugs. Your points are well taken. I suppose it's just as bad to have an alcoholic behind you in traffic and there are probably addicted drug users out there that have a CCW. It's just the addictive nature of those two drugs drives more users to self-destruct than any other substance, including heroin and pain-pill addiction.

I recently watched a documentary on cocaine and meth addiction that was pretty good. The drugs cause users to exhaust their levels of Serotonin in the brain. Chronic use depletes the Serotonin stores and reduces the sensitivity of brain receptors to it. The long-term affects of this lead to an inability to maintain proper state of mind and mood. Loss of serotonin is the most common cause of depression. Drugs like crack and cocaine raise blood pressure and stimulate the electrical system of the heart. This leads to enlarged heart (usually left ventricle) and changes in cardiac electro-physiology. Later in life users of these drugs are prone to heart failure, atrial or ventricular fibrillation. Afib causes blood clots and is the most common cause of stroke while vfib can cause instant death. These patients demonstrate early need for implantable pacemakers and defibrillators. Drug addiction has a direct relationship to increased medical costs and since it is recognized as a valid disability there is a direct relationship to increased demands on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

However, in all fairness to your opinion, cigarettes are the only consumer product that, when used exactly as intended, will result in death.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,677
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top