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

[Link]

I doubt it would be a good idea so far as mischief goes. Paul winning Iowa leads to either a Romney nomination or a Paul nomination, both of whom are far more dangerous to Obama than Perry, Gingrich, etc.

I agree.  The best thing for Obama is a Gingrich win in Iowa.  I don't know why anyone on the left would want to mess with that.

[Link]

Ron Paul supports withdrawal from the UN, doesn't he? If he were elected President, the results would be catastrophic.

How would that be catastrophic?  And can the president withdraw us from the UN without approval of Congress?

[Link]

Republicans don't understand the monster they've created.

30 years of ''government is the problem, starve the beast''.

They've created a class of voters who views government as tyrannical, and think only drastic cuts to everything can restore some mythical freedom.

And then they run Romney and Gingrich who both have, no surprise, used government to accomplish things. And voters recoil.

And now they're terrified that voters are beginning to believe the crap they've been spewing, and might actually vote on it.

This.

A simplistic fantasy sold to the dim witted.  If government is the problem then who paved the road to my work?  Who kept the poo poo out of my drinking water?  Who kept the rat feces out of my lunch meat?  I guess it was big benevolent corporations and the evil government didn't have anything to do with that.

[Link]

I think a lot of the Obama people (or ex-Obama people) supporting him there find him legitimately charming.

Thing is, supporting Obama and Paul makes no sense whatsoever. Their policies are mutually exclusive. But people are fools, so whatever.

I don't agree.  There are definitely areas of overlap.  Frankly there are a lot of areas of overlap between a lot of Democrats and Republicans if you take the partisan hype out of the equation.

Ron Paul is for legalizing drugs and prostitution.  He believes the government should get out of the marriage business.  Actually his views on that are to the left of Obama!  I know I know Obama's views are "evolving."  Come to think of it Ron Paul's views on drug legalization and prostitution are also to the left of Obama.  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

[Link]

I think a lot of the Obama people (or ex-Obama people) supporting him there find him legitimately charming.

Thing is, supporting Obama and Paul makes no sense whatsoever. Their policies are mutually exclusive. But people are fools, so whatever.

I don't agree.  There are definitely areas of overlap.  Frankly there are a lot of areas of overlap between a lot of Democrats and Republicans if you take the partisan hype out of the equation.

Ron Paul is for legalizing drugs and prostitution.  He believes the government should get out of the marriage business.  Actually his views on that are to the left of Obama!  I know I know Obama's views are "evolving."  Come to think of it Ron Paul's views on drug legalization and prostitution are also to the left of Obama.  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Right. Obama and Paul don't agree. That's my whole point. Supporting both makes no sense.

You voted for Obama in '08 because of all the candidates offered up he was the one that would tell the justice department to lay off Cali.  If they want to sell medical marijuana don't get in a huff and prosecute them.  Three years later Paul comes along.  He takes some Obama policies to the next level, but he is unelectable.  So you like Paul but you vote for the guy that can actually get elected... Obama.

I actually really like some of Paul's views.  I recognize a lot of his views are interesting in an academic sense but unworkable in real life.  On the other hand I find some of his proposals anything from amusing to disturbing.  I support him because he adds a unique voice to the conversation.  I don't think he can or should be president though.

[Link]

  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

Errr... I'm pretty sure perfectly legal alchohol has been implicated in a lot more date rape situtions than Rohypnol.  Where do you guys get this hyperbolic nonsense?

[Link]

  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

When the last time somebody was raped because of marijuana? I believe alcohol is the more typical drug men use to get women to sleep with them.

Beat me by about 40 seconds.  That was a guaranteed sh-t starter.  To be fair alcohol has been used by fat chicks to get otherwise sensible guys to do things they later regret on a much more epic scale

[Link]

However, in aggregate Paul's positions are a heaping pile of sh!t.

Never denied this.

[Link]

  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

When the last time somebody was raped because of marijuana? I believe alcohol is the more typical drug men use to get women to sleep with them.

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

Now, you are free to argue that since alcohol is legal, and marijuana is readily available we just have to conclude that the horse if out of the barn, and Pandora is out of her box. so we might as well let men buy Rohypnol with legal impunity.

Is that your argument?

Rohypnol is one drug.  I personally have never considered date rape a huge problem as far as illicit drug use in America.  But then again I don't watch many ABC after school specials.

Guns are used in murders and robberies.  Do you think all of them should be banned?

Get a grip.

[Link]

 Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

Errr... I'm pretty sure perfectly legal alchohol has been implicated in a lot more date rape situtions than Rohypnol.  Where do you guys get this hyperbolic nonsense?

Umm, women, generally, know when they are drinking alcohol. Rohypnol is colorless, tasteless, and odorless.

Why does it matter if you know what you are drinking?  Gee I got raped but since I know what I was drinking that makes it a lot better!

Where do you get this stuff?

[Link]

Again, you are free to argue that since thousands of women may very well be raped, annually, after [voluntarily] consuming alcohol we just have to throw our hands up and state that since, "The horse is out of the barn. Pandora is out of the box. And, the Rubicon has been crossed" on date rape we should turn a blind eye to men buying Rohypnol.

whoa.

[Link]

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.

Fact #1 the majority of adults in America are overweight or obese.
Fact #2 the majority of women and men have not been date raped using Rohypnol.

The right wing bogeymen that your masters use to keep you servile don't impress me.  I know what the real threats are.