United States Presidential Election, 2012

I wouldn't call legalization of any drug that is highly harmful to your system a good thing. Do you know if Ron Paul wants to increase the government or decrease it in terms of size?
 
Magus said:
Do you know if Ron Paul wants to increase the government or decrease it in terms of size?
Click to expand...

Decrease. He wants to follow the Tenth Amendment and he says the government should have no power in our personal lives.
 
Right. And there are good things about that (no "I don't believe in gay marriage so no one else can either!!1!") and bad things ("fuck the poor, leave 'em to die, government shouldn't help them").
 
I'd say monitoring illegal drugs is the government's right because it has the potential to be harmful to others as well as the person taking it. However, that's something that would probably be done more effectively by the state governments in most cases. I'd call reducing the size of the Federal Government a plus at this point, and if I had to vote solely on economic policies, that's where the rubber meets the road for me.
 
Messed Up Freakshow of Cryptic Sarcasm said:
Ron Paul will never win, anyway. It will be Obama or Romney.
Click to expand...

This.

Magus said:
I'd say monitoring illegal drugs is the government's right because it has the potential to be harmful to others as well as the person taking it. However, that's something that would probably be done more effectively by the state governments in most cases. I'd call reducing the size of the Federal Government a plus at this point, and if I had to vote solely on economic policies, that's where the rubber meets the road for me.
Click to expand...

That doesn't do anything because people do and will do whatever they have to in order to get them. If illegal drugs are legalized (e.g. if this eventually goes the way of Prohibition, aside from an amendment, which I don't think is necessary at this point), the amount manufactured in homes (and thus the number of accidental explosions) and the amount sold on the street (where you don't know exactly what's going into your body) significantly decreases, and with that, the potential risk to people other than the drug user decreases.
 
Mario4Ever said:
Magus said:
I'd say monitoring illegal drugs is the government's right because it has the potential to be harmful to others as well as the person taking it. However, that's something that would probably be done more effectively by the state governments in most cases. I'd call reducing the size of the Federal Government a plus at this point, and if I had to vote solely on economic policies, that's where the rubber meets the road for me.
Click to expand...

That doesn't do anything because people do and will do whatever they have to in order to get them. If illegal drugs are legalized (e.g. if this eventually goes the way of Prohibition, aside from an amendment, which I don't think is necessary at this point), the amount manufactured in homes (and thus the number of accidental explosions) and the amount sold on the street (where you don't know exactly what's going into your body) significantly decreases, and with that, the potential risk to people other than the drug user decreases.
Click to expand...
I do agree on that; my main point was that it's not a violation of rights to be denied something that makes you potentially more dangerous to people around you. Also, they do seem to be treating the symptoms rather than the cause a good deal in this case.
 
Only low lives and losers take drugs anyway. The legalization of drugs would not cause ONE new person to take them. And the legalization would save the federal government a lot of money. We are 15 trillion dollars and debt and we gotta spend money crowding the prisons and spending billions going on a war on drugs when the low live low class scum will just do them anyway regardless of their legality? Do you really need the federal government to hold you by the hand and make you not take heroine or what not? "Oh, I don't wanna shoot up H, save me oh might Government!" Just don't take it, period! God! Some people are incorrigible.
 
Marwikedor said:
Only low lives and losers take drugs anyway. The legalization of drugs would not cause ONE new person to take them. And the legalization would save the federal government a lot of money. We are 15 trillion dollars and debt and we gotta spend money crowding the prisons and spending billions going on a war on drugs when the low live low class scum will just do them anyway regardless of their legality? Do you really need the federal government to hold you by the hand and make you not take heroine or what not? "Oh, I don't wanna shoot up H, save me oh might Government!" Just don't take it, period! God! Some people are incorrigible.
Click to expand...

You've got a decent point but you phrased it like a jackass.
 
I have a lot to say that can defend marijuana but I don't want to derail the thread. Here's one anyway: having known alcoholics and stoners, I can easily say alcoholics are (generally) far more dangerous. While I admit that doesn't say anything good for marijuana itself, there's a very common misconception that it's as bad as drugs like heroin, cocaine and ecstasy.
 
So what do you guys think of Stephen Colbert entering the race? I'm amused.
 
I love it. He has so much leverage that he can just run for shits and giggles and get votes.
 
Sharks Territory said:
I love it. He has so much leverage that he can just run for shits and giggles and get votes.
Click to expand...

While unlikely, it'd be interesting if he became the Republican candidate...it'd certainly make voting more amusing.

By the way, another one bites the dust.
 
That stupid Romney looks like he is going to get the nomination unless Santorum and Gingrich can sit the hell down in a room and decide which one of them will run as the truly conservative candidate contra Romney. If that fucking Romney gets the nom, it is a drastic shame that Obama never had to run against a true conservative to contrast his Marxism. That dull, rich-fuck Romney is SOOOO boring and wooden. Why does that matter? I place a great stock on that undefinable quality called charisma ... animal magnetism ... personality ... etc. It goes by many names and it's very hard to put one's finger on exactly what personal characteristics add up to the "aura of leadership." But it's one of those things that, well, you know it when you see it. You knew that Ronald Reagan had it.. You know (unfortunately for all men who love democracy and America) that Obama has it. And you know it right away when someone DOESN'T have it. You know that Romney doesn't have it -- and nothing he or his handlers do will ever be able to instill it in him. A guy like Perry COULD have had it, but his incompetence during the early debates and downright silliness on some other occasions sapped the "leadership aura" from him.

Body language has a lot to do with it, including the look in one's eyes. Tone of voice is important. Gingrich, for example, with that high-pitched voice of his could never radiate a strong leadership aura. Self-confidence is , of course, of paramount importance. Even if a candidate possesses self-confidence, that's not enough. He must LOOK as if he possesses it.

In addition to the WAY a person says something, the specific CONTENT is also important. (But, surprisingly, communication study after study have shown that STYLE (body language, tone of voice, facial gestures, eye contact, etc.) actually count for more than the words a speaker utters.

My beloved fatso Chris Christie is a born leader, just to name one example. He has that deep voice ... self-confident, give-em-hell attitude ... solid physical presence (more than just his bulk but the way he uses his bulk to project power). And he never backs down. He tells uppity reporters off. He stands his ground.

Romney, whom I have TRIED so hard to find acceptable (because, like it or not, I'm afraid we're stuck with the smug bastard as our nominee), just doesn't fill the bill -- and he never will. I have said to myself time and again after being bored to tears (no, death) listening to him speak and watching his non-charismatic body language, "If only I had a half-day to coach him on what I call 'The Language of Leadership.' I could make him into a much more interesting candidate. I could up his "Leadership Quotient" by at least a few points."

But then I realized I was being unrealistic. I doubt a guy like Romney would be open to learning new speaking and gesturing techniques. He's hopelessly stuck with that cardboard, department-store-dummy, one-dimensional, terminally dull persona of his.

I've studied hundreds of famous speakers and speeches over the centuries (from Pericles to Queen Elizabeth to Lincoln to Churchill to Reagan, etc.) and distilled the qualities that enabled them to project leadership when they spoke. I boiled these qualities or traits down to only 4 (in order to keep it simple). I teach my students that they can master the "Language of Leadership" by doing 4 things:
1) Speak in short bursts of plain language.
2) Use vivid, concrete terms.
3) Tell stories.
4) Take responsibility.

Great leaders over the centuries used these 4 techniques when they made their great, historic speeches. I challenge anyone to find one great speech throughout history that does not possess these 4 characteristics -- or at least all of them except, on occasion, the third one about telling stories. (Some types of speeches don't lend themselves to stories, by which I don't mean long-winded anecdotes, but which can be very brief 2- or 3-sentence recollections or remembrances or references to actual events or experiences. For example, in JFK's famous Inaugural speech in 1961, he did not tell any stories, because it simply didn't fit the occasion or the short length -- only about 20 minutes -- of his speech. But most great speeches DO include at least one story. People LOVE stories, and a speaker can grab and keep his audience's attention by including a short anecdote or two in his speech.)

Alas, getting back to Rick Santorum, I find that he does not possess that leadership quality that I speak of. He comes across as a very nice guy, a thoroughly decent person -- but not as a strong leader. Certainly not someone who could go up against Obama in a debate and win.

For one thing, Santorum has that deer-in-the-headlight look in his eyes. I'm not sure there's anything he can do about it. Also, he does NOT possess one thing that is a tremendous asset in life -- a big, genuine, authentic-looking smile. I, for one, have not been blessed with such a smile. FDR -- socialist swine that he was! -- had such a winning smile. So did JFK. So (I HATE to say it) does Obama. Reagan sort of had such a smile, but he had other magnetic attributes that made up for not having an FDR-caliber smile.

Santorum NEVER truly looks happy. I'm sure he is happy lots of time, but he doesn't LOOK happy. That's the key -- not whether a candidate actually IS happy, but whether or not he LOOKS happy. When I see Santorum,. I can't help but think that the nuns did a number on him when he was in Catholic grade school. I knew some kids who were so traumatized by the nuns at that early age, they never recovered -- they always walked around the rest of their lives listening for -- dreading -- that sound of rustling habit and long long rosary beads clapping together.

Yes, Santorum and I probably agree on conservative principles and policies 98% of the way. But I don't think he could EVER win the presidency because he won't compromise enough to appeal to enough voters. Do I hate abortion? Yes. I hate it so much it got me an unpaid month vacation from the forums. Do I think most Americans would vote for a guy who makes such a big issue about abortion? No. Am I against gay "marriage"? Yes. Do I think most Americans would vote for a guy who makes such a big issue about gay marriage? No. (FF65, bless her heart, is in the minority among young people. I can tell you for a fact that 90% of young voters, the Satantic self-worshipping sots that they are, would never vote for a candidate who spoke out against gay "marriage" or abortion. Even Ronaldus Magnus knew enough to maintain a low profile about abortion until he moved into 1600 PA Ave.

In short, Santorum has been too out-front on some sensitive social issues. A wise Republican who stands a chance of getting elected, given the attitudes of most voters, needs to concentrate on 3 key issues (Reagan's golden "Rule of 3's" -- focus on 3 goals and keep hammering away at them on the stump and when in office). Those 3 winning issues are 1) Bring down the debt because we are a bankrupt nation, 2) Create more jobs, especially manufacturing jobs which have all gone to China and other countries, and 3) Get government out of our lives -- which includes snooping on us so much, adding so many new regulations that stifle businesses, etc.


Sorry to be so sour on Santorum. He's a bright guy. A good Catholic. I believe he's Italian-American (or at least part, but I'm not totally sure about that). He's a fine family man. But none of those things, alas, make a man a charismatic leader.
 
Marwikedor said:
The legalization of drugs would not cause ONE new person to take them.
Click to expand...
....
Although I think that's wrong, I still agree with the legalization of marjiuana.
 
Obama is not Marxist. If he were, he'd be making the government smaller, which he has definitely not done. He is a socialist, and believes that the government should control more aspects of peoples' lives. While I definitely don't see Marxism as a viable form of government, people don't seem to understand how much of a difference there is between what we know as communists today and Communism as set out in Marx's Communist Manifesto.
 
Gingrich did great in the recent debate here in SC.

YES

Hopefully Romney will lose traction here in SC, not many people here like him.
 
Dr. Javelin said:
Gingrich did great in the recent debate here in SC.

YES

Hopefully Romney will lose traction here in SC, not many people here like him.
Click to expand...

How can you in good conscience support Newt Gingrich? i'm really, really entirely baffled as to how the "pro-family" party can be seriously considering this horrible man. He's a hypocrite- he wants the government to prevent gay couples from being able to get married once... while he's been married three times, and cheated on two of his wives! Who's Mr. Family Values now?
 
Messed Up Freakshow of Cryptic Sarcasm said:
Dr. Javelin said:
Gingrich did great in the recent debate here in SC.

YES

Hopefully Romney will lose traction here in SC, not many people here like him.
Click to expand...

How can you in good conscience support Newt Gingrich? i'm really, really entirely baffled as to how the "pro-family" party can be seriously considering this horrible slug. He's a massive hypocrite- he wants the government to prevent gay couples from being able to get married once... while he's been married three times, and cheated on two of his wives! Who's Mr. Family Values now?
Click to expand...
Morals < Ability, in my opinion.

He's also not afraid to admit his past mistakes as many other Presidents (Clinton, anyone?) have been.

Also I will say that there is about a zero percent chance of Paul winning here in SC, what with all our military families.
 
GODDAMN I was just on Youtube and it served me a fucking 14 minute ad for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul fans, how can you support a man who supports this kind of advertising?
 
Messed Up Freakshow of Cryptic Sarcasm said:
Dr. Javelin said:
Gingrich did great in the recent debate here in SC.

YES

Hopefully Romney will lose traction here in SC, not many people here like him.
Click to expand...

How can you in good conscience support Newt Gingrich? i'm really, really entirely baffled as to how the "pro-family" party can be seriously considering this horrible slug. He's a massive hypocrite- he wants the government to prevent gay couples from being able to get married once... while he's been married three times, and cheated on two of his wives! Who's Mr. Family Values now?
Click to expand...
Newt Gingrich, AKA Mr. Family values, first married a hideous, morbidly obese woman when he was 19 who happened to be his high school math teacher. He made a bet with a fellow student, "Someday I will marry that woman!" One of his wives he dumped while she had MS, and another wife he served divorce papers while she was terminal with stage 4 cancer. That hatchet-faced woman he is with now is his mistress. He married his mistress twice! The long nosed hatchet-face he is currently married to is the 2nd mistress he wed!

But what is his excuse for it all? His excuse is simple: I wasn't a Catholic then. His latest mistress he married happened to be a Catholic, so he tells his conversion story to whitewash his past infractions. That's his answer to every mistake from his sordid past: "I wasn't a Catholic then." Newt converted, so now he's different. What are you people's thoughts on that? Good excuse? Bad excuse? But no one can deny he is the best debater. He is at least as smart as Thomas Jefferson if not more so. The smartest one in Washington no doubt. But he's fat and he's ugly, which leads me to wonder if women will support him.
 
That's kinda sexist, saying that women will vote simply based on looks.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, certainly isn't exactly good-looking. Hasn't stopped her. And now Germany is the most powerful country in Europe.

And the best speaker in the history of US politics wasn't Jefferson, it was Daniel Webster.
 
Sharks Territory said:
That's kinda sexist, saying that women will vote simply based on looks.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, certainly isn't exactly good-looking. Hasn't stopped her. And now Germany is the most powerful country in Europe.

And the best speaker in the history of US politics wasn't Jefferson, it was Daniel Webster.
Click to expand...
Angela Merkel is certainly no Margaret Thatcher. In the 1930s, the studio moguls at MGM such as Louie B. Mayer would make or break careers of young starlets by asking the men who viewed the photoplays one question and one question only: Can you fantasize about yada yada yada with her. If much of their reply was no, that would be the end of her career. I'm not saying all people will vote just based on looks. The average 23 year old moron who watches Dancing w/ the Stars most certainly will. They see this fat man who looks like the Pillisbury Doughboy with a powederd wig on debating against a tall, not too bad looking man who they are used to, they will choose that one. They don't know what liberal or conservative or anything on a different tangent is. They don't know the difference. I remember during the aught-4 election Bush v. Kerry the majority of voters under 25 did not even know who the vice president of the United States was!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back