Here's a link to the entire video: Meet the Press interview with Ron Paul
Here's the first part of four off of YouTube; please take a few minutes to watch at least this clip:
Are you scared yet?
Two minutes in, and I was packing my bags, ready to run for the hills. God save us if this man gets even close to winning the nomination. So what is it exactly about this interview that freaks me out more than other clips of Ron Paul I've seen? I already wholeheartedly disagree with him on virtually everything, but what struck me about this interview is that Ron Paul does not have any facts or numbers to back up his ludicrous positions--Tim Russert had to fill in the blanks for him. Paul cannot even hold his own in an interview, he has nothing to back himself up, AND he holds positions that are idealogical, pie-in-the-sky, and completely philosophical--totally unrealistic and impossible to enforce.
Once again, I do not understand the cult-like following that Ron Paul has produced.
If Ron Paul was a movie, he'd be Napoleon Dynamite.
-Cydney
Cross-posted on The Celebrity.
America has made more money selling lies than any country in the history of man.
I am sick of being an American because it means I stand for lies...
Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 26, 2007 06:39 PMYou have the right to be sick of America. You have that right to leave her if you want. But understand that Ron Paul's words are his downfall, not his salvation. The vast majority of Americans will read snippets of his ideas, or see the video above and conclude he is not fit for leadership. He's running a heck of a side show that will go absolutely nowhere.
You should consider the pragmatic reality of your vote, in addition to your principals. A Democrat/ Progressive gets us further away from Ron Paul's vision than does a Republican. Ron Paul is not a Republican, he's a Libertarian, or something less categorizable.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 26, 2007 10:06 PMIt would be great if we didn't have to meddle in foreign affairs, but it's impossible now that we're already heavily involved internationally. George Washington, in his Farewell Address of 1796 urged the US to avoid meddling with the affairs of Europe and to rely on allies only temporarily and when in dire need. Sounds great--we were already geographically at an advantage, but the War of 1812 changed things. The British and the Spanish kept seizing our sailors off our ships, and we got fed up. Thus, the beginning of the US being involved in Europe's affairs. With the rise of technology and ease of communication, it has become more and more difficult to ignore the problems of the world around us.
War is a horrible thing, and I agree that it should be a last resort, but we live in an imperfect world filled with imperfect people, and war is nigh inevitable at one point in time or another.
I'm sorry you feel that way about this country, Bulldog. You have every right to move to Canada or Switzerland. Also, just because you were born an American doesn't automatically mean you stand for lies. You can still be an American without standing for lies.
Oh, and not everyone hates Americans. I have friends who have traveled the world and say that some people are so excited to know an American and all they want to do is go to America.
But please tell me this, what do you mean by "restoring the constitution"? Do you mean bringing it back to its original self plus the Bill of Rights? Please enlighten me.
Posted by: Cydney on December 26, 2007 10:56 PMThat aside...what in sam hill are you talking about high gas prices for? Do you honestly think that a Ron Paul presidency (obviously purely hypothetical--it's not going to happen) would bring gas prices down? By bringing all 572,000 troops home from around the world (which Ron Paul proposes), the sudden demand would push the cost of gasoline higher! Simple economics--something Ron Paul obviously hasn't thought out.
Posted by: Cydney on December 27, 2007 07:39 PMRon Paul would be the only candidate to encourage competition from other sources (like industrial Cannabis)
Ron Paul has thought out the process of instilling new clean fuel sources.
The first step is rescheduling marijuana to allow indutrial cannabis to be grown.
I know Most of the older generation fell for that 10 pound monkey crap that led to the banning of industrial cannabis.
Industrial Cannabis was banned for one reason and one reason only..Competition
Be a real man and keep reading until you have been educated properly on the subject.
link found here
http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/hempandkenaf.html
Meat and potatoes of that link posted here
A Sorry History
So why is hemp not grown in America today? Why has the American creative genius not found ways to process hemp efficiently and turn it into a myriad of useful products, at least on a large scale?
The reason is twofold: Hemp competes directly with wood products and hemp belongs to the same plant family as marijuana. The history of how hemp products were removed from the American commercial scene deserves retelling, but only after this important disclaimer: This article is not intended to endorse the legalization of marijuana or the recreational use of this drug in any way.
Until the machine age, processing of hemp was a difficult and time-consuming business. Mature hemp is cut down and allowed to lie in the fields until all the leaves fall off. Then the fibrous outer portion of the stalk--called the bast--must be separated from the inner portion--called the hurds, a process that involved backbreaking labor.
New technologies in the early 1900s brought many industries into conflict. The DuPont Chemical Company developed a chemical process for turning wood pulp into paper. The procedure required bleaches and acids to whiten the tannin-stained wood fibers. DuPont also developed ways of making plastics from oil.
In the 1930s, a mechanical process was developed for decorticating hemp and making it into paper. Thus, hemp became a practical paper source, said to cost less than half that of paper made from tree pulp. Hemp also competed with the petroleum-based plastics industry since many plastic products could be made from hemp.
When the chemical paper pulping process was invented, DuPont entered into a multimillion dollar deal with a timber holding company and a newspaper chain owned by William Randolph Hearst, a deal that provided Hearst with a source of very cheap paper for his newspaper, not to mention profits from his timber interests. The chemically washed paper turned yellow as it got older which is why the Hearst style of sensational reporting acquired the term "yellow journalism." Hearst knew that he could drive other newspapers out of business with the advantage that cheap newsprint gave him but the advent of even cheaper paper made from hemp threatened his plan.
To prevent unwanted competition from hemp products, Hearst engineered a misinformation campaign in his nationwide chain of newspapers. It was Hearst who popularized the Mexican slang term "marijuana" for hemp. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, his papers stressed the evils of marijuana in lurid terms, but never pointed out that marijuana came from the same useful plant family as hemp and that it was impossible to get high by smoking hemp leaves.
In 1937, a DuPont ally on the House Ways and Means Committee introduced the Marijuana Tax Act Bill. It was prepared in secret and quickly presented for vote. The AMA did not realize until too late that marijuana, the plant Congress intended to outlaw, was actually cannabis, which at the time was an important part of the medicinal pharmacopeia. The AMA found out about the bill only two days before the hearings and sent a representative to object to the banning of cannabis medicines. A hemp bird seed sales man also showed up and complained.
There was little protest against the bill because Americans, even if they had known it existed, did not understand that cannabis hemp and marijuana were the same thing. To add to the confusion, the word "hemp" is often wrongly used to refer to other natural fibers, such as jute.
Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh, DuPont’s chief financial backer, also played a role in the removal of hemp from the marketplace. As Secretary of the Treasury under Herbert Hoover, Mellon appointed the husband of his niece, Harry J. Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in 1931. After the Marijuana Tax Act passed, Anslinger’s agency enforced it with a vengeance for the next 30 years. The act made no chemical distinction between hemp and marijuana. The smokeable parts--the leaves and the flowers--were taxed at $100 per ounce. Instead of targeting marijuana coming in from Mexico, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics hassled Midwestern farmers with red tape and busting them if they found any leaves remaining on the stalks.
Anslinger’s office also prosecuted over 3,000 AMA doctors for illegal prescriptions until the AMA stopped fighting for the medicinal use of cannabis in 1939. Initially the pharmaceutical companies had also fought attempts to outlaw cannabis because it supplied so many important ingredients in pills and potions. Today, drug companies actually benefit from the ban as many are working to develop cannabis analogs that can be patented and sold at greater profit than unpatentable compounds from a common plant.
When Japan seized the Philippines in 1942, America’s supply of "Manila hemp" was cut off. This was not true cannabis hemp, but it was an excellent fiber for rope, boots, uniforms and parachute cording. The government then did an about-face and encouraged Americans farmers to be patriotic and grow hemp. Hemp was no longer called marijuana expect on the permits issued to farmers, which referred to them as "Producers of Marijuana." The Department of Agriculture even made a promotional film entitled Hemp for Victory. Some 400,000 acres of hemp were planted and the fibers were processed in 42 hemp mills built by the War Hemp Industries Corporation.
But after the war, hemp production was again discouraged. Americans were enamored of synthetic fabrics and no one clamored for natural fibers. The last hemp field was planted in Wisconsin in 1957. During the 1970s, all mention of hemp was removed from high school texts books in the United States.
Hemp & Marijuana: Not the Same Thing
The compound responsible for the psychoactive properties of marijuana is tetrahydrocannabinol or THC. Marijuana plants contain levels of THC ranging from 3 to 15 percent while plants grown for industrial hemp contain less than 1percent of THC. Cannabis grown for hemp also contains cannabidiol or CBD which blocks the effects of THC on the nervous system. According to researchers, low THC levels and high CBD levels in hemp plants negate any psychoactive effects. If hemp were psychoactive, there would be a tradition of smoking it. Farm lads have resorted to smoking corn silk to get high, but not to hemp leaves. In fact, those who have tried to do so report that hemp-smoking causes a headache, nothing more.
The Drug Enforcement Agency charges that enforcement agents can’t tell the difference between marijuana and hemp. But enforcement officers in 29 other countries, where marijuana is illegal and hemp is not, have no trouble telling the difference. Hemp, grown for stalks, is tall and spindly while marijuana, grown for flowers, is short and bushy. Officials claim that pot will be hidden in hemp fields, but marijuana cannot be grown with hemp because hemp produces a deep shade that chokes out even hardy weeds. In fact, the two crops must be cultivated at least seven miles apart because hemp pollen will render the next generation of marijuana less potent.
The poppy furnishes an example of a crop with both legal and illegal uses. Poppies grown for opium are illicit, but poppies grown for seed are legal and allowed in the food supply.
Hemp from earlier days of cultivation now grows as weeds, called ditchweed, which provides shelter and food for birds, as well as a repository for hemp seeds. Much of the government’s anti-marijuana efforts are directed at destroying ditchweed that grows throughout the Midwest. Given the history of the anti-hemp movement, advocates for legalization of hemp may be justified in asking whether there is a hidden agenda behind these well-publicized ditchweed fires.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 27, 2007 08:38 PMhttp://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_faq1.shtml#2-1
11) How can hemp be used as a fuel?
The pulp (hurd) of the hemp plant can be burned as is or processed into charcoal, methanol, methane, or gasoline. The process for doing this is called destructive distillation, or `pyrolysis.' Fuels made out of plants like this are called `biomass' fuels. This charcoal may be burned in today's coal-powered electric generators. Methanol makes a good automobile fuel, in fact it is used in professional automobile races. It may someday replace gasoline.
Hemp may also be used to produce ethanol (grain alcohol.) The United States government has developed a way to make this automobile fuel additive from cellulosic biomass. Hemp is an excellent source of high quality cellulosic biomass. One other way to use hemp as fuel is to use the oil from the hemp seed -- some diesel engines can run on pure pressed hemp seed oil. However, the oil is more useful for other purposes, even if we could produce and press enough hemp seed to power many millions of cars.
12) Why is it better than petroleum?
Biomass fuels are clean and virtually free from metals and sulfur, so they do not cause nearly as much air pollution as fossil fuels. Even more importantly, burning biomass fuels does not increase the total amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. When petroleum products are burned, carbon that has been stored underground for millions of years is added to the air; this may contribute to global warming through the `Greenhouse Effect', (a popular theory which says that certain gases will act like a wool blanket over the entire Earth, preventing heat from escaping into space.) In order to make biomass fuels, this carbon dioxide has to be taken out of the air to begin with -- when they are burned it is just being put back where it started.
Another advantage over fossil fuels is that biomass fuels can be made right here in the United States, instead of buying them from other countries. Instead of paying oil drillers, super-tanker captains, and soldiers to get our fuel to us, we could pay local farmers and delivery drivers instead. Of course, it is possible to chop down trees and use them as biomass. This would not be as beneficial to the environment as using hemp, especially since trees that are cut down for burning are `whole tree harvested.' This means the entire tree is ripped up and burned, not just the wood. Since most of the minerals which trees use are in the leaves, this practice could ruin the soil where the trees are grown. In several places in the United States, power companies are starting to do this -- burning the trees in order to produce electricity, because that is cheaper than using coal. They should be using hemp, like researchers in Australia started doing a few years ago. (Besides, hemp provides a higher quality and quantity of biomass than trees do.)
I must say, however, that Mike Huckabee is for energy independence, using whatever it takes to get us there--nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.
Posted by: Cydney on December 27, 2007 11:42 PMWhy slap a tax on people when they can't help the fact that they currently can't use anything else.
Haha...I think this conversation could lead to a discussion on global warming...while we're almost there, I'm going to say that I highly doubt that global warming is andropogenic (man-made). We've only been recording temperatures for less than 100 years--a relatively short time span whether you believe the earth is billions or only thousands of years old.
Posted by: Cydney on December 28, 2007 12:40 PMI think global warming is being used as an excuse to divert us into the inner cities so we can generate higher square footage rates Higher property taxes,retail sales,and sales taxes.
When you read these greenie web sites they advocate for retail sales and sales taxes.
What is so green about retail sales and sales taxes.
Seattle wants Grand boulevards so it can generate sales taxes.
Seattle developers want to cash in on the gentrification of the inner cities so they can charge more for the square foot.
Sims,and Nickels really don't care about saving a whale salmon or frog,They want Higher property taxes, sales taxes,and property taxes.
What is green about 35 mph traffic going up and down a grand boulevard..Nothing.
The greenie groups are propped up by the developers and given places at the planning table by the State, County, and city.
We are being lied to so we can be fleeced for more money.
Sims does not want any competition for the inner city urban village grand boulevard,that is why he opposes any gentrification of Federal Way until the rainer valley has been filled in.
Sims is also against High speed rail because it interferes with the fill in.If people take high speed rail from where they live now they will not be able to frustrate people into urban villages using carrot and stick planning policies(with the help of disingenuine greenie groups.
Global warming can be solved by High speed rail on the original corridors,and clean energy sources like industrial cabnnabis.
However Sims and Nickels oppose those ideas,which exposes their real desires for higher property taxes retail sales and sales taxes.
They like to use the UW to put out phony studies that give their quest some credibility.
Fuzzy logic is another lie the grand boulevard groupies used to bamboozle the public.
I could go on but I will let you do it first.
RP's message is libertarian, not necessarily in line with the GOP...and Paul is nowhere near reforming the GOP to his platform.
Yes, Paul has outraised everybody. Good for him. I'm just wondering what he's going to do with the money after he loses the primaries. I just don't understand how you think that Paul has any chance of winning the primaries. I definitely think he's going to do a lot better than people give him credit, but I don't think he has even a chance to win the nomination just based on the fact that he doesn't align himself very well with the GOP. It's politics. This is the same reason why I have doubts that Rudy would be the nominee, as well...he doesn't align with what most people in the GOP do, but he's not afraid to say it, either.
Time will tell!
Posted by: Cydney on December 28, 2007 09:29 PMHowever, his chances of getting elected are very, very slim. His latest polling on Real Clear Politics shows him at 3.8%. My question to the Paul supporters - who will you support otherwise ? (Huckabee will not be the anointed one, even though he is trying like heck to be..)
Posted by: KS on December 29, 2007 10:43 PMGood points. I don't understand why RP has such a cult-like following when common sense tells us that his policies (if hell freezes over and he's elected) will never be implemented.
About Huckabee: he most definitely is not the "anointed one" in the sense that most mainstream conservative pundits are vehemently anti-Huckabee, but I think he might be able to break the mold...
Posted by: Cydney on December 30, 2007 08:34 AM