Is Ron Paul's boat in Iowa being raised by Obama fans out to cause mischief?

[BigSkyBob]

I am pointing out the absurdity of asserting a moral equality between regulating french fries and Rohypnol. They are different in kind.

Well logic appeals to people like me a lot more than right wing "morals."  If you step back and look at it you can make a pretty good case that in and of itself the piss poor American diet does more harm to the country than illicit drugs especially if you eliminate a lot of the ill effects brought on by Reagan's dumb @$$ war on drugs.

Curious, are you claiming "left wing 'morals'" do assert a moral equivalence between regulating french fries and Rohypnol?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this your argument for legalizing the sale of Rohypnol between any willing buyer and seller? [Something along the lines of, "Since more women are date raped by other means, such as raw force, it doesn't matter than some lesser number of women are drugged and raped with Rohypnol."]

If "[my] masters" are attempting to keep me "servile," I would only note that they are doing a very bad job. In case you have forgotten, like folks in the Teaparty, I advocate a hostile takeover of the Republican party by conservatives.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I am pointing out the absurdity of asserting a moral equality between regulating french fries and Rohypnol. They are different in kind.

Well logic appeals to people like me a lot more than right wing "morals."  If you step back and look at it you can make a pretty good case that in and of itself the piss poor American diet does more harm to the country than illicit drugs especially if you eliminate a lot of the ill effects brought on by Reagan's dumb @$$ war on drugs.

Curious, are you claiming "left wing 'morals'" do assert a moral equivalence between regulating french fries and Rohypnol?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this your argument for legalizing the sale of Rohypnol between any willing buyer and seller? [Something along the lines of, "Since more women are date raped by other means, such as raw force, it doesn't matter than some lesser number of women are drugged and raped with Rohypnol."]

If "[my] masters" are attempting to keep me "servile," I would only note that they are doing a very bad job. In case you have forgotten, like folks in the Teaparty, I advocate a hostile takeover of the Republican party by conservatives.

Why do you support the legalization of guns? People get SHOT by guns!

[BigSkyBob]

I am pointing out the absurdity of asserting a moral equality between regulating french fries and Rohypnol. They are different in kind.

Well logic appeals to people like me a lot more than right wing "morals."  If you step back and look at it you can make a pretty good case that in and of itself the piss poor American diet does more harm to the country than illicit drugs especially if you eliminate a lot of the ill effects brought on by Reagan's dumb @$$ war on drugs.

Curious, are you claiming "left wing 'morals'" do assert a moral equivalence between regulating french fries and Rohypnol?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this your argument for legalizing the sale of Rohypnol between any willing buyer and seller? [Something along the lines of, "Since more women are date raped by other means, such as raw force, it doesn't matter than some lesser number of women are drugged and raped with Rohypnol."]

If "[my] masters" are attempting to keep me "servile," I would only note that they are doing a very bad job. In case you have forgotten, like folks in the Teaparty, I advocate a hostile takeover of the Republican party by conservatives.

Why do you support the legalization of guns? People get SHOT by guns!

Your question makes no sense. Gun ownership is legal. I can only "legalize" something that isn't legal in the first place.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I am pointing out the absurdity of asserting a moral equality between regulating french fries and Rohypnol. They are different in kind.

Well logic appeals to people like me a lot more than right wing "morals."  If you step back and look at it you can make a pretty good case that in and of itself the piss poor American diet does more harm to the country than illicit drugs especially if you eliminate a lot of the ill effects brought on by Reagan's dumb @$$ war on drugs.

Curious, are you claiming "left wing 'morals'" do assert a moral equivalence between regulating french fries and Rohypnol?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this your argument for legalizing the sale of Rohypnol between any willing buyer and seller? [Something along the lines of, "Since more women are date raped by other means, such as raw force, it doesn't matter than some lesser number of women are drugged and raped with Rohypnol."]

If "[my] masters" are attempting to keep me "servile," I would only note that they are doing a very bad job. In case you have forgotten, like folks in the Teaparty, I advocate a hostile takeover of the Republican party by conservatives.

Why do you support the legalization of guns? People get SHOT by guns!

Your question makes no sense. Gun ownership is legal. I can only "legalize" something that isn't legal in the first place.

Not where I am, but anyway, do you support making guns illegal? After all, they kill people just like date rape drugs rape people.

[BigSkyBob]

I am pointing out the absurdity of asserting a moral equality between regulating french fries and Rohypnol. They are different in kind.

Well logic appeals to people like me a lot more than right wing "morals."  If you step back and look at it you can make a pretty good case that in and of itself the piss poor American diet does more harm to the country than illicit drugs especially if you eliminate a lot of the ill effects brought on by Reagan's dumb @$$ war on drugs.

Curious, are you claiming "left wing 'morals'" do assert a moral equivalence between regulating french fries and Rohypnol?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this your argument for legalizing the sale of Rohypnol between any willing buyer and seller? [Something along the lines of, "Since more women are date raped by other means, such as raw force, it doesn't matter than some lesser number of women are drugged and raped with Rohypnol."]

If "[my] masters" are attempting to keep me "servile," I would only note that they are doing a very bad job. In case you have forgotten, like folks in the Teaparty, I advocate a hostile takeover of the Republican party by conservatives.

Why do you support the legalization of guns? People get SHOT by guns!

Your question makes no sense. Gun ownership is legal. I can only "legalize" something that isn't legal in the first place.

Not where I am, but anyway, do you support making guns illegal? After all, they kill people just like date rape drugs rape people.

Cutting to the chase, guns have legitimate uses, such as self-defense, and participating in the Militia, and, improper uses, such as armed robbery, and murder.

Would you care to explain what the legitimate uses of Rohypnol would be?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I am pointing out the absurdity of asserting a moral equality between regulating french fries and Rohypnol. They are different in kind.

Well logic appeals to people like me a lot more than right wing "morals."  If you step back and look at it you can make a pretty good case that in and of itself the piss poor American diet does more harm to the country than illicit drugs especially if you eliminate a lot of the ill effects brought on by Reagan's dumb @$$ war on drugs.

Curious, are you claiming "left wing 'morals'" do assert a moral equivalence between regulating french fries and Rohypnol?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this your argument for legalizing the sale of Rohypnol between any willing buyer and seller? [Something along the lines of, "Since more women are date raped by other means, such as raw force, it doesn't matter than some lesser number of women are drugged and raped with Rohypnol."]

If "[my] masters" are attempting to keep me "servile," I would only note that they are doing a very bad job. In case you have forgotten, like folks in the Teaparty, I advocate a hostile takeover of the Republican party by conservatives.

Why do you support the legalization of guns? People get SHOT by guns!

Your question makes no sense. Gun ownership is legal. I can only "legalize" something that isn't legal in the first place.

Not where I am, but anyway, do you support making guns illegal? After all, they kill people just like date rape drugs rape people.

Cutting to the chase, guns have legitimate uses, such as self-defense, and participating in the Militia, and, improper uses, such as armed robbery, and murder.

Would you care to explain what the legitimate uses of Rohypnol would be?

Insomnia treatment. Also, suicide.

Meanwhile,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Self defense with a gun generally implies murder at some point.

[BigSkyBob]

I am pointing out the absurdity of asserting a moral equality between regulating french fries and Rohypnol. They are different in kind.

Well logic appeals to people like me a lot more than right wing "morals."  If you step back and look at it you can make a pretty good case that in and of itself the piss poor American diet does more harm to the country than illicit drugs especially if you eliminate a lot of the ill effects brought on by Reagan's dumb @$$ war on drugs.

Curious, are you claiming "left wing 'morals'" do assert a moral equivalence between regulating french fries and Rohypnol?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this your argument for legalizing the sale of Rohypnol between any willing buyer and seller? [Something along the lines of, "Since more women are date raped by other means, such as raw force, it doesn't matter than some lesser number of women are drugged and raped with Rohypnol."]

If "[my] masters" are attempting to keep me "servile," I would only note that they are doing a very bad job. In case you have forgotten, like folks in the Teaparty, I advocate a hostile takeover of the Republican party by conservatives.

Why do you support the legalization of guns? People get SHOT by guns!

Your question makes no sense. Gun ownership is legal. I can only "legalize" something that isn't legal in the first place.

Not where I am, but anyway, do you support making guns illegal? After all, they kill people just like date rape drugs rape people.

Cutting to the chase, guns have legitimate uses, such as self-defense, and participating in the Militia, and, improper uses, such as armed robbery, and murder.

Would you care to explain what the legitimate uses of Rohypnol would be?

Insomnia treatment. Also, suicide.

There are people called "doctors" who write "prescriptions" for folks with insomnia.There are no legitimate uses for Rohypnol.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Self defense with a gun generally implies murder at some point.
[/quote]

No, it does not. Murder is "unlawful" killing, while killing in self-defense is lawful.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are people called "Police" who "arrest" people who commit murder. There are no legitimate uses for guns.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, suicide. Anyway, no "legitimate uses" could be used to ban a variety of drugs. Who defines what "legitimate" is?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't think the Obama machine would support Paul or Huntsman to cause chaos, as both of them could do well in the general.

Lol.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are people called "Police" who "arrest" people who commit murder. There are no legitimate uses for guns.

[quote]

So, let me see if I understand your assertion.

You seem to be asserting that using a firearm to prevent a person from successfully murdering another person is illegitimate?

So, are you ok with using a different weapon to defend oneself from a deadly attack which might result in death to the attacker, or are you merely opposed to self-defense?

[pbrower2a]

Putting any kind of frug on somebody's drink is a completely different thing than choosing it for yourself. That said, anybody know what chemicals McDonalds has been putting in your food? It's not a pretty question.

The chemicals added to food that most likely cause trouble are insecticides and weed-killers (enough said) that have been washed off vegetables, pollutants that ended up in fish, and the more insidious growth hormones and antibiotics fed to livestock and poultry. The antibiotics stimulate the resistance of disease germs; the growth hormones promote early puberty in children. Those end up in the food supply long before the food gets to any restaurant or grocery store.

Of course the heavy use of frying puts much fat into our diets... if we eat the high-fat foods.

Anyone who introduces a date-rate drug into someone's drink is a literal poisoner and should be subject to a prison term for assault.   

[M]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are people called "Police" who "arrest" people who commit murder. There are no legitimate uses for guns.

You can't seriously be saying that all killings are morally equivalent. That would mean that an accidental killing, a self-defense killing, heat-of-passion manslaughter, and capital murder are indistinguishable.

[Ebowed]

When did anyone, ever, advocate for the legalization of rohypnol?  It's not a recreational substance.

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are people called "Police" who "arrest" people who commit murder. There are no legitimate uses for guns.

Tell that to women whom otherwise would be raped.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, suicide. Anyway, no "legitimate uses" could be used to ban a variety of drugs. Who defines what "legitimate" is?
[/quote]

Reasonable people acting in good faith.

[BigSkyBob]

When did anyone, ever, advocate for the legalization of rohypnol?  It's not a recreational substance.

Just about every so-called "libertarian" I have met. Their ideology doesn't specify the legalization of "recreational drugs." Their ideology rejects, on principle, any government regulation of any drugs.

If the government took their platitudes seriously, we'd see epidemics of parents giving their children performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids.

[Peeperkorn]

Some in Iowa think so. I think it may be a bit paranoid myself, but this is kind of the paranoid season these days. If that paranoia leads to killing the caucus circus however, that is the kind of paranoia I like! 

Oh, please, stop crying.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Funny, reasonable people acting in good faith are also often in favour of banning guns.

Remind me, does the rohypnol rape people, or do rapists rape people?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like who? Please, provide a list for me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was unaware that no government controls on something stupid results in people doing aforementioned stupid things.

Its a good thing the people in Washington are so much wiser and better than us mere mortals!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

God,

Some people just cant believe that Ron Paul has a following in the GOP itself. If you watch Fox, they treat Paul like some kind of interloper. Paul is for limited government and non-intervention. This is very old school Republicanism.

You mean like in the 1930's, when the GOP was keeping refugees from Europe out and insisting that Japan and Germany were not a threat?

Yeah, I'll agree with that. Since the early 1950's, though, he's as much an aberration on foreign policy as Lyndon LaRouche for the Democrats.

There are two Republican FP camps - the Reagan/GWB strong interventionist model, and the Nixon/GHWB pragmatic interventionist model. Noninterventionism is anathema to most Republicans.

Wasn't Robert Taft a Non-Interventionist?

He was, not to the extent of Paul though (supported NATO and the Marshall Plan). But in many ways he was the last of a breed, dying in 1953.

I can even extend my model backwards, with the pragmatists being represented by Ike and Vandenberg, and the hawks by Dulles and Goldwater.

But then, Democrats were divided in much the same way at the time. The 1950s was not a good time to be a noninterventionist. The advent of ICBMs, nukes, and space flight, combined with the failure of appeasement, WWII and the beginning of the Cold War, was enough to convince Americans as a whole that two great oceans were no longer a perfect defense against the troubles of the planet.

The thing is, on foreign policy everyone besides Paul, Huntsman and Johnson are of the more hawkish wing. than Reagan. And Huntsman and Johnson are not considered in a place like Iowa. And so plenty of people who wouldn't go as far as Paul in his non-interventionism find him relatively closer to their point of view.  Plus you have the Constitution Party types and Buchanan supporters who will go for Paul. The anti-interventionist/anti-globalist sentiment among social conservatives (esp. fundamentalists) shouldn't be underestimated.