toldailytopic: If Ron Paul were President of the USA...

[aCultureWarrior]

I completely agree that marijuana impairs you to some degree, but alcohol impairs you to the same degree if not more.

Many marijuana users imbibe in alcohol as well, thus adding to the problem even more.

So why is it that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not?

Because our laws were based on God's word, and according to God, it is wrong to intoxicate yourself.

In other words, you can drink alcohol responsibly and not get intoxicated; if you don't get high off of drugs, you're doing something wrong.

My view on constitutionalism holds true %344 here.

I'm not sure what you mean by %344, but in order to understand the constitution, you have to know about the men that wrote it (they were Christians, not dopers).

The government shouldn't determine right or wrong when it comes to an individual, when the individual is the only one affected by his or her choices.

That mentality would be fine if a person were alone on a deserted island.

 

[eameece]

I completely agree that marijuana impairs you to some degree, but alcohol impairs you to the same degree if not more. So why is it that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not? My view on constitutionalism holds true %344 here. The government shouldn't determine right or wrong when it comes to an individual, when the individual is the only one affected by his or her choices.

Instead of complaining about Paul's proposals to legalize drugs, or let states decide on abortion, they should complain if Paul wants to keep Glass-Steagall repealed, repeal Dodd-Frank, throw out the consumer protection agency it created, and otherwise un-regulate the economy so a few rich people can run and ruin our lives. Government does not need to regulate personal behavior that affects only that person; it needs to regulate the power of the rich to destroy our economy, our environment and our culture. :angrymob:

 

[ThermalCry]

The country would descend into chaos while the right-wing tells us 'everything is under control'.

 

[jeremysdemo]

Ah yes, Ann. Never one to let decency, or the facts, get in her way.

If Paul were president, next to nothing would happen. Washington would be in grid lock; he'd veto a lot of legislation; Congress would grandstand and maybe even override a veto or three. But he wouldn't be able to get much done. He poses enough of a threat to the establishment to guarantee that. And frankly, if he's honest and consistent (and he always has been), Paul would probably tell you that's exactly the point: the president isn't supposed to do much, constitutionally. Congress should be the driver in Washington.

I agree, he has been in the legislative branch for 30 some odd years far too long IMHO, and few if any of his progressive initiatives get enough bipartisan support to pull through.
There is no reason to believe that if he would be president it would be any different or that House and Senate would suddenly do a 360 and start supporting him.

That's why my vote is with Gary Johnson, little less progressive, respected governing leader, and it would be nice to finally have an independent to get in their and tear down these party lines that are filibustering grass roots movements cow towing to Big biz lobbies.

Ron Paul needs to go back to his branch where he can do more good pushing forward progressive legislation once Gary is president!

BTW on a side note people need to get over the marijuana initiatives of these progressives, it ain't about imposing your staunch conservative right beliefs on other on other people at this point it is about what is best for the country as a whole, not for the Republicans or the Democrats, that all stuff that makes division and we are never going to move forward that way, if you ain't part of the solution you are part of the problem so just move out that way, b, move out the way.

keep shinin

jerm

 

[drbrumley]

Ron Paul and progressive in the same sentence....please!!!!!!!

 

[Cracked]

The economic landscape would improve significantly. Budgets would be balanced. Our overseas bases and nation building would slow to a trickle. Citizens would get to keep more of their own money (abolish the income tax) and the money the have wouldn't be "taxed" through inflation (abolish or audit the federal reserve).

Helicopter Ben could cook hamburgers instead of balance sheets.

The federal war on drugs would end. Life would be defined as beginning at conception and the states could enforce laws on both. The Patriot Act would be overturned, restoring some of the liberties we have lost.

This is all hopefully in the first year or so. So, to be continued...

...baldness would be cured, the NE Patriots would be disbanded, and everyone would use their blinkers...

 

[Ps82]

The country would descend into chaos while the right-wing tells us 'everything is under control'.

I'm a right wing person that agrees with you about our country going into chaos. Stark differences between liberals and conservatives are already bringing conflict and personal disagreements.

Things are escalating from person to person into chaos. We are no longer a united people... but rather our citizens are becoming more and more radically different regarding moral beliefs, world views, and the choice of a form of government.

Things are outwardly calm so far considering the quiet rumbling occurring in the hearts of every citizen in our nation... the legal and the illegal, the rich and the poor, the faithful and the faithless, the citizen and the leaders ...

It is time for Americans to make a choice regarding what type of nation they are? Either way it goes ... close to half of us probably won't like the choice. Things look bad!

 

[WizardofOz]

...baldness would be cured, the NE Patriots would be disbanded, and everyone would use their blinkers...

 

[drbrumley]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 20th, 2012 10:55 AM

toldailytopic: If Ron Paul were President of the USA...

We would be alot BETTER off.

 

[Quincy]

We would be better off, indeed. His domestic policies wouldn't cause any stalemates, I wouldn't think. No one but the far left and far right would oppose his takes on that stuff. His foreign policies would be the deal breaker, sadly. That would cause stalemates on foreign affairs but those all too foreign anyways.

 

[rexlunae]

There were indeed alignments during all previous assassinations, and one that almost succeeded. To this extent: whoever between 1841 and 1961 was inaugurated as president, every 20 years, did not survive in office. Plus one in 1850. And ONLY these. This coincided with Jupiter alignment with Saturn every 20 years, plus Jupiter opposition Saturn after the first such alignment (1850). Lucky Ronald Reagan escaped "by inches," it is said, because the previous conjunctions happened in earth signs and the 1981 conjunction happened in an air sign. 1841 was the first in a continuous series of such conjunctions in earth signs; 1961 was the last.

In 1861, 1881, 1901 and 1961, that president was assassinated. In the other cases, it was illness.

So, what about the second man inaugurated as President in 1881? What kept Chester Arthur safe from assassination? And what made the pattern start and then stop?

 

[eameece]

The economic landscape would improve significantly. Budgets would be balanced. Our overseas bases and nation building would slow to a trickle. Citizens would get to keep more of their own money (abolish the income tax) and the money they have wouldn't be "taxed" through inflation (abolish or audit the federal reserve).

Helicopter Ben could cook hamburgers instead of balance sheets.

The federal war on drugs would end. Life would be defined as beginning at conception and the states could enforce laws on both. The Patriot Act would be overturned, restoring some of the liberties we have lost.

These may be good proposals, or not; but that does not mean they would fly with this congress and senate under current rules.

 

[eameece]

So, what about the second man inaugurated as President in 1881? What kept Chester Arthur safe from assassination? And what made the pattern start and then stop?

The theory is, as I explained, the conjunctions that portended presidential deaths in office all happened in earth signs. The deaths in office applied to the originally-elected ones, not the successors who were not elected to the office. That's a good question, though I think the answer is obvious. If every president who was inaugurated after a previous one died, also died, presidents might be dying once a month for a whole year! Not a likely scenario even for "the stars" to accomplish. The Jupiter-Saturn conjunction means a new phase in the fortunes of the establishment, through a decisive change or shift. Once that is accomplished, no further such drastic events are needed. One chapter ends; another opens (not necessarily a happier chapter). In the case of the USA, we are a violent people, so violence is part of the picture.

Most patterns in astrology last for a period of time, though that could be centuries or millennia, depending on the cycle. But the patterns eventually change their meaning at-least somewhat because humans change and evolve. So for example, in this case, presidents are guarded more carefully today, and they are healthier too because life expectancy is longer.

The Jupiter-Saturn conjunction has a long history of coinciding with this kind of event. And even if it does not mean a death in office, it likely means a change in party and/or a drastic change in direction from the previous government. So the next one will mean the same thing in 2020. It is a little more unclear now though, since the conjunction now happens during the election year rather than the inaugural year. That is another probable reason why the pattern of deaths in office no longer seems to hold (GW Bush got off scot free).

 

[eameece]

We would be better off, indeed. His domestic policies wouldn't cause any stalemates, I wouldn't think. No one but the far left and far right would oppose his takes on that stuff. His foreign policies would be the deal breaker, sadly.

His policies are mostly a combination of far right and far left. One side would reject some of his policies, and the other side would reject others. That certainly includes his leftist foreign policy.

 

[Newman]

His policies are mostly a combination of far right and far left. One side would reject some of his policies, and the other side would reject others. That certainly includes his leftist foreign policy.

When I read this, I read "His policies are strictly Constitution-based. One side would reject the Constitution, and the other side would also reject the Constitution. That certainly includes his Constitutional foreign policy of non-interventionism."

 

[tetelestai]

1961 was the last.

In 1861, 1881, 1901 and 1961, that president was assassinated.

Kennedy was assassinated Nov 22, 1963, not 1961

 

[WizardofOz]

Kennedy was assassinated Nov 22, 1963, not 1961

Time to move those planets again :chuckle:

 

[The Berean]

Kennedy was assassinated Nov 22, 1963, not 1961

And Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865, not in 1861.

 

[tetelestai]

And Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865, not in 1861.

I went back and read eameece's post again.

Apparently his (or her) theory of the planets being aligned/assassinations is based on the year the president was inaugurated, and not the year of the assassination.

Lincoln was killed in 1865, Garfield and McKinley were both shot the same year they were inaugurated (1881 & 1901), and Kennedy was shot in 1963

Did you know that since 1949 every year that Kentucky has won the National Championship in men's basketball the Yankees have won the World Series?

1949
1951
1958
1978
1996
1998

Planets?

 

[rexlunae]

The Jupiter-Saturn conjunction has a long history of coinciding with this kind of event. And even if it does not mean a death in office, it likely means a change in party and/or a drastic change in direction from the previous government. So the next one will mean the same thing in 2020. It is a little more unclear now though, since the conjunction now happens during the election year rather than the inaugural year. That is another probable reason why the pattern of deaths in office no longer seems to hold (GW Bush got off scot free).

Given that one in five presidential terms start in years that ends in 1, and they occur every 20 years, and also that almost one in four presidents have been inaugurated in those years, statistically you'd expect a lot of party changes and major reversals in those years. This is mere coincidence, and it works by finding the pattern after the events have already happened. You can't really use it to predict future events with any certainty.