By "Radical" Russ Belville on February 21, 2009
That Ron Paul. He’s such a mixed bag for me. He’ll go on talking about the drug war, our imperialist foreign policy, and other topics, and I’ll just be nodding my head in agreement, thinking, “what a thoughtful man”. And then, whammo, he’ll say something so batshit crazy I can’t believe I’m listening to a congressman and not a babbling schizophrenic holding a “Why Lie? I Need A Beer!” sign on the streetcorner (for example, leave people alone, get government out of our business, government should stay out of the doctor-patient relationship, respect personal privacy… unless that’s a pregnant woman, then government should get all up in her business.)
But he’s a consistent true believer and has always been right on the drug war, so I give him that.
Posted in ENTERTAINMENT, LEGISLATION | Tagged Bill Maher, Ron Paul
I am the producer of The NORML Network, the host of the NORML SHOW LIVE and The NORML Stash Blog, and NORML's Outreach Coordinator. I'm married, live in Portland, Oregon, and I am a registered medical marijuana caregiver in this state. I've worked days as an IT geek and nights as a professional musician. Previously, I have been the host of my own political talk radio show on satellite radio. I've been the High Times "Freedom Fighter of the Month" and I travel across the country to educate people on marijuana reform. I've dedicated my life to bringing an end to adult marijuana prohibition and re-legalizing cannabis hemp, and I'm honored to be chosen by NORML to give voice to the Marijuana Nation and to speak for those who can't speak up.
Loading ...
[...] (Note: I am not directly elevating Emery to King or Lennon status; neither of them ever called me “ignorant and unworthy”. On the other hand, King and Lennon never helped produce the crops of fine Pacific Northwest [...]
I think it’s a fun discussion. :) I hope Marc continues as a regular poster here. To be honest I’ve never really paid attention to the comments before. I might have to from now on though.
I’m really enjoying this repartee between two of my activist heroes!!! I think a joint conference between Russ, Marc, Rosenthal, and the guy who used to do the stash, Goldstein I think it was, is very much in order! That would be something I would burn to disc and keep in my car CD changer to play for like-minded friends of mine who aren’t necessarily familiar with all the concepts of the reform movement. Get Ron Paul in there, and all of you in one studio with professional TV production, and I’d donate $25 in a heartbeat to get the DVD, and I’m on an extremely limited budget. Literally rice and beans. But I do have a decent supply of saffron, yum! Nothing beats salt and saffron on basmati rice. You don’t even need butter on that combination. :)
Anyway, I think a serious discussion suitable for showing people who may not initially be reform-friendly would be a great tool for fundraising and political awareness efforts. I thought Super High Me played too much to the stoner stereotypes, making it difficult to take seriously the points of the political message.
Obviously with Misters Belville, Emery, Goldstein, Paul, and Rosenthal there would be more than enough levity to entertain the audience. If everything were kept a little more towards the sober side, however, I think it would be a very effective educational aide. Maybe Tommy Chong dressed and groomed as he would for a serious business meeting. Medical patients, any of the more prominent activists with a good story to tell, including documentation of successful therapy from medical doctors. Sort of a round table/educational documentary of sorts in the 90-120 minute range. I know it’s been done before, but I think the group of people I see coalescing here could pull together and do a better job at it than ever before.
Wow, this discussion was just bat shit crazy, man!
Great discussion guys…..appreciate both of you!!!!
That’s pretty cool. Keep on fighting the good fight.
I wonder who’ll legalize first, Canada, or a US state?
Pretty wild to see this go down here. But we all grapple with this stuff. I support Ron Paul. Voted for him. And I grew up in what you would call pro-choice Democrat family. I grapple with the same things about Barney Frank. Yes, he supports us and I like the words and platform he’s been giving us but his alleged shadiness with the Fannie Mae and supporting the bailouts I am convinced that won’t work or help. I don’t like that.
It’s not easy being a blogger or having a voice with a group of marijuana reform activists when you have political disagreements with some of the top politicians. It’s a fine line to straddle. Do I cover Barney Frank’s work in my own state? Do I let people know that personally would not vote for him? Or shut up about it? It’s not easy for any of us. Mr. Emery is defending himself and so is Russ. I think neither should need to. I respect them both for their work even when I don’t agree with something they say or do. We are all humans and different and what we bring to the table is what makes the difference. Celebrate it.
About bail, I couldn’t actually raise that. I am out on $50,000 surety today, for example, and it required 5 people to put up real estate property of at least $50,000 each, each being responsible for $10,000 in cash, should I not show up for court or any bail obligations.
But yeah, I see your point. But I’ve actually never used the company money to pay my own criminal lawyers, I rely on donations and a part of my $500 salary each week to pay him. In fact, CC Magazine has a lawyer on staff to litigate, sue, research, represent the poor and do pro-bono work for those who are marginalized or unable to conduct any defense (as many pot people cannot qualify for even legal aid), but that doesn’t include my defense.
By the way, I’m only useful in days that end in Y.
Thanks, Marc. And thanks for clearing up the millionaire thing. I’ve seen just about every doc you’ve been in, including the one showing your apartment and talking about your lifestyle. However, can we agree that $500/week and owning a business with millions in sales, regardless of how much money it burns through, isn’t the same precarious position as a marijuana consumer making $500/week with no business assets? For example, if you protest and are arrested, you can make bail and not lose your job. All I’m saying is you wield a considerable amount of power and assets that do not make you the typical $500/week guy in a studio apartment, but I admire your frugality and generous donations to the cause.
I’ll see to it that a return visit from Rep. Paul is a priority, especially when the decrim and hemp bills are reintroduced in Congress.
OK, thats one area I must clear up. I am not and have never been flush with $20,000, let alone a millionaire.
Every cent I raised was given away. I have always received a weekly salary of $400 (in 2006) to $500 weekly (now) and in the great days (2001) I paid myself $1,000 a week. Thats it. Our businesses generated $1,500,000 to $3,000,000 in sales a year, but I didn’t get that money. That money paid our 30 employees, all our supliers, and then an average of $400,000 each year, the profit, was given away to various groups & activities. That was the whole purpose of our businesses to raise money to prop up the movement, especially in the dark days of the 90′s when there were few if any other sponsors.
and it was a good strategy. I’ve been raided 6 times alone, and the police took all my assets each time, including all merchandise and cash. If I had been greedy enough to sock away money for myself, the police would hasve taken it.
Let me repeat, in my 15 years in British Columbia, I have never owned any property, bonds, stocks, investments, had cash deposits of any kind (I have no savings, I burn through my $500 a week immediately), no other income, no financial partners, I have never owned a car, I live in a spartan 500 square foot apt. I don’t have any drug habits or hobbies of any kind. I do not have any savings and none of our businesses save any money, they burn through every cent the day it arrives.
And I am perfectly happy this way. I am proud of the fact that I personally have never taken any more than is necessary for me to get up and walk to work each day. And anyone who has ever known or met me can corroborate this information, I meet dozens of activists and members of the cannabis culture every day. But I see this millionaire talk all over the place, even though I have never told anyone that I was a millionaire ever and I am continually correcting this uncorroborated assertion.
If anyone wants to know what my life is like, I urge your audience to watch or buy the DVD documentary of my life of activism, a very reasonable $14.95 + $5 shipping cost, for PRINCE OF POT: US vs. Marc Emery. It covers my 30 years of work on behalf of liberty and the cannabis culture. It was made by CBC Television, Canada’s national TV network, and it has been aired nationwide on TV in Canada nine times, over 4,000,000 Canadians have watched this movie. In fact I will remit $5 for each DVD ordered by anyone who says the word NORML in their order by paypal the same day as your order.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/16670
And Russ, Ok, I’ll stop busting your balls over the bat-shit thing because I did look at a fair bit of your other work and you are a pretty useful guy. I linked your latest piece (Bill 390) on my facebook. Good for Assemblyman Tom Ammiano. Go California!
And my apologies for the boot thing. Arrogance it was.
Look forward to your next interview with Ron Paul on Podcast.
And here we reach perfect agreement: Ron Paul is a great champion for cannabis law reform.
See, I kept my politics out of it.
Please do the same. If we are to be allies in cannabis law reform, isn’t that what you want? For us to disregard our disagreement about Ron Paul in matters not related to cannabis? So why you still hatin’, playa?
Dude, I know what you’ve done, no need to dangle your CV for everyone. You’re a multimillionaire, everyone here knows who you are, and congratulations and thank you for everything. I’m just a guy four years into this movement working on a shoestring budget trying very hard to cling to the notion that one of my activist heroes is deep down a nice guy I might like to share a bowl with on the day I finally make that I-5 slog up to Vancouver.
Other than Congressman Ron Paul, that is.
Fair enough, you’ve recanted as much one might reasonably expect.
But as to my credibility, you may not have been impressed with the snippets that National Geographic put on their TV show, but my resume is prodigious on achievements in this movement; including but not limited to;
* creating a more varied range of cultivars of marijuana throughout North America than had ever existed before;
* donating over $4,000,000 in contributions to Canadian and US activists, groups, organizations, class action suits, political parties, rallies,events,and marches than any other single individual in the world outside of George Soros from 1995 to 2005.
* repealing the ban on High Times Magazine and other cannabis literature in Canada in 1995 through court actions
* original sponsor from 1999 to 2005 of the Global Marijuana March
* Put on the legendary Tokers Bowl from 2002 to 2005
* arrested 23 times, jailed 17 times and raided 6 times for marijuana from 1996 to 2008. I’ve been jailed in 8 out of ten Canadian provinces for protesting pot laws here.
* Published Cannabis Culture Magazine from 1994 to present
* founded the BC Marijuana Party in 2001 which continues to have influence in Canada
* managed to piss off Drug Czar John Walters by heckling him unmercifully for 45 minutes when he spoke in Vancouver in November 2002. (I’ve never even heard of any American ever heckling him anywhere ever)
* and if thats not enough, even though I have never sold marijuana, George Bush’s Attorney-General Albertos Gonzales called me ” Canada’s #1 drug trafficking target ”
and
* Karen Tandy, DEA administrator under Bush, boasted 5 times on the day she had me arrested, that she despised my legalization efforts, my magazine, and the money I contributed to US activists groups.
Anyway, on the issue of credibility, if you know any American with a resume like that, let me know.
Marc, you were doing so well until you got to your last sentence. I’ve apologized, on blog, on Twitter, and on show. I’ve covered news about you and supported you against US demands for extradition. I’ve pointed people to your magazine as wealth of information about cannabis. No need for you to continue to be a Cheney in my house.
For a guy who represents us by skirt chasing and huffing six-footers while babbling to Lisa Ling, you’ve got no room to talk about credibility.
I bid you good day, sir.
It is an a priori assumption that all voters cannot support 100% of every view of any individual politician, therefore Russ thinks his opinion on all matters is more relevant that finding common ground with any legislator who may be helpful. I’m sure all 435 US representatives and 100 Senators and both VP and President hold many objectionable views as far as the Everyman is concerned.
Dr. Paul has been an advocate against the Drug War since 1976, over 30 years and over 20 years in the congress. Your views, “Radical” Russ, on any other matters other than Dr. Paul’s voting record and advocacy of drug law legislation are farcial and irrelevant and only serve to distract.
To remind any in your sphere that are unaware, Congressman Ron Paul is only one of five of 435 Congresspeople to vote to get rid of the White House Drug Czar (ONDCP) each year. Even Dennis Kucinich and Barney Frank don’t do that. Congressman Paul has voted against all government drug war advertising. Congressman Paul co-sponsors more bills to repeal aspects of the Drug War than any other Congressman (although Dennis Kucinich and Maxine Waters come close) each and every year. Congressman Paul allies with Barney Frank and his good friend Dennis Kucinich on many bills about marijuana, including the current Adult Marijuana Usage Act of 2008 (and later this year, the 2009 version), Ron Paul is not afraid to ally with any US Rep or Senator as long as it repeals some aspect of prohibition.
Cannabis Culture Magazine rated Ron Paul as the cannabis cultures best friend based on his voting record in all years from 2000 to present.
When Ron Paul was asked by Wolf Blitzer during the primaries what his first act as President would be, Ron Paul replied on CNN “I would immediately stop all these raids on sick people using marijuana.”
There is no other Congressman who comes close to Ron Paul in defending all aspects of the cannabis culture at all times and under all circumstances. Dr. Paul does not conveniently forget about marijuana when convenient to do so for political purposes. The man is a giant, an advocate we have never seen before and likely, when he is gone, never will again.
You are not even worthy to lick his boots, Russ, so whatever your views on other subjects might be, keep it yourself. You have no credibility any longer after disparaging our #1 hero in the cannabis culture.
Thanks for sayin’, but if I’m going to be reporting on the Rastafarian cases or people claiming religious use of marijuana, I cannot hold back my opinion that non-religious use is just as valid as religious use, and to do that I have to be honest about my atheism.
I will endeavor to be reasonable and polite, but my stock in trade is satire, sarcasm, and wit, so occasionally somebody is going to be offended. I think there is enough room for the Radical Russes and the Craig Xes (just picking one religious activist at random) of this movement, and I’m sure we can get along fine as we work for positive change.
Thank you for your insight, and everyone else who has commented. I have learned a great deal from this, believe me.
Russman:
All I’m suggesting is that religion is an issue that should be excluded from THIS discussion. It is irrelevant unless it is to show that religious folks disagree with each other about this issue.
Even so, if religion is a common thread among a certain group of folks, some of whom agree with us and some of whom do not, it can still be eliminated because its on both sides of the equation. The reduced value becomes “people disagree.” Big news.
Religious people are often hypersensitive to statements that apparently question their convictions, whether the statements are intended that way or not. Religion relies on an individual’s faith for things that cannot be explained, and its enough to turn some people away for somebody to even appear on the wrong side of that argument.
This mj issue is a freedom issue, and we should treat it as such. It is the sort of thing that can bring folks together rather than divide them. I suppose its my hope that religion and the mj issue can be reconciled because it is my view that they should be. I just don’t think it should be a choice between the two.
I listen to the stash almost every day. In fact, I wish I had the guts to advocate the mj issue the way you guys at NORML do. I often feel like I need to file for visitation rights to see my balls. Then again, its not a goal of mine to land in jail or to become a martyr. I must convince myself that discretion is the better part of valor and just do what I can.
Thanks for the reply. It’s important to note that I’m not tripping, I’m just saying. :)
You’re absolutely right, Chris. In the past I have been a free-wheeling independent blogger offering my opinions on everything, including the price of tea in China (sell! sell!), and have never had to self-censor, muzzle, or moderate my tone or opinions before.
But here I have a specific mission and that is to end adult marijuana prohibition, period. So you’re right, I need allies from all over the political spectrum and needn’t ruin that opportunity with forays into other politics. I still have my own blog for that (radicalruss.com).
However, I don’t recall where I have been overly dismissive of religion. I have mentioned my personal stance as an atheist, but I don’t consider that any more “anti-religion” than mentioning my eye color. In fact, of all unrelated topics, I’ve been trying my darnedest to avoid defaming any religions. Looking back on the posts I’ve categorized as “Religion”, I find I’ve written:
I don’t think that is “there is no God” talk.
It’s a pointed comment – calling religion “mythology” – but not untrue (mythology: a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered, and myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.)
Again, true, you cannot prove the existence of a god in a court of law, even though people often swear to one.
Overall what I’m trying to demonstrate here is that when I speak of religion with terms like “mystical”, “supernatural”, or “mythological”, I am accurately describing it, am I not? Believe what you will, but you must admit it is non-scientific and unprovable in a court of law, or we can’t form any shared reality with which to discuss marijuana law reform.
I speak of my atheism in the same manner as people who are religious speak of their God. They constantly tell me they support my right to be a non-believer, but then will speak of God as if everyone agrees He exists and there is no controversy and we atheists are just a fringe set of contrarians to be tolerated for our unbelief. I’m just returning the favor.
Finally, while I will keep my focus on marijuana law reform, I can’t not be me. This is a news and opinion blog and without some opinion, this might as well just be an RSS news feed.
Mischaracterizations of some of Ron Paul’s stances aside, the dealio is this: As an advocate of marijuana law reform, you might consider avoiding disagreements with folks on unrelated topics. It is devisive, it is unhelpful, and Russ, my man, very few people around here care what you think about the income tax, gays in the military, abortion, or the price of tea in China.
We gather here to advocate a common cause. Ron Paul has a great chance of convincing some Republicans that they don’t have to be the champions of war, including the war on some drugs, and you want to say that he says some things that are “batshit crazy?” How is that helpful? To say such things is to take the very position you often rant against. Apparently, a majority of Americans think your views on mj are batshit crazy, and you want to draw a line in the sand on unrelated topics?
I get annoyed with some of your prods at religion simply because there will be some who will hear you and will associate your anti-religion views with your mj law reform views. Not only is that unhelpful, it provides ammunition to the opposition.
That may be their problem and not yours, but in the end, the point is that you can do something about it. We need to DISassociate the mj issue from other inflamatory issues. Why can’t you just say what everybody else says: “I don’t agree with Ron Paul about everything…”
Dude, we need everybody to wake up and smell the coffee, not just those who don’t believe in God. Focus, man, focus!
At the very least, you might avoid coming down on issues (apart from mj issues) as though you are the authority. You’ve got great arguments for mj law reform. In fact, I often wish they would let you debate some prohibitionists. You will lose some like-minded folks on the mj issue if your message becomes “mj good/loving God bad.”
The very minute you start your “there is no God” talk, you create enemies… enemies that will oppose you and anything you advocate, at every turn, no matter how reasonably argued. If you want to start a homosexual athiest socialist website/online radio show after our work here is done, then go for it… otherwise, stow that shit. It is other than helpful, and in my opinion, it slows progress on getting the mj message out.
I advocate your right to believe what you want to and to be able to publicly speak about it. All I’m getting at is this forum is not necessarily the place to cheer affirmative action, a strong central government (which, by the way, is part of our problem as mj law reformers) or public acceptance of somebody’s gayness. These are seperate issues, and quite honestly, they are some other organization’s fight.
I’m not trying to muzzle you, man. You are who you are, and I appreciate your work. Just consider my words as words from somebody that thinks you say some things that are batshit crazy from time to time but who agrees with you on the mj issues.
Peace,
C
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I was unnecessarily antagonistic. Won’t happen again.
I think some of us Ron Paul supporters are taking umbrage with the unusually strong language you are using. It is NOT batshit crazy to be against abortion. And I think we are accustomed to hearing a certain more civil level of dialog in our political discussions. Anyway, if you look into it he says reproductive law should be controlled by the states. Maybe California would have partial-birth abortions (which I think is a boogeyman invented by the right wing), whereas the day-after pill may be banned in Tennesee. Also, I am against abortion, and the anti-abortion crowd feel the way we do because we have the sincere belief that at some point before delivery, a fetus has become a fully vested live human being. I don’t see how that is a batshit crazy belief. You deserve the heat you’re taking on this, but I’m glad you won’t compromise your expression. I would hope however that you would disagree in a less antagonistic tone. It sounded as if it really yanks your chain way too hard when someone disagrees with your positions on reproductive issues.
Russ,
I completely support your position on Ron Paul. While he is right on many topics – getting government out of people’s personal lives, prohibition, etc. – he goes out into left field on other topics, many of which you mentioned. There is often a gaping lack of skeptical criticism of political leaders by their core supporters. No one wants to accept that the things they strongly believe might not be right. If Ron Paul somehow became president nothing would get done. His positions are too polarizing to either side of most debates that the other two branches of government would fail to get anything done.
While this blog is about cannabis reform, we need to stop being so politically correct that we do not engage others in order to “respect” their views when their views aren’t supported by facts and reason, whenever they may be raised. Because one believes something doesn’t make it true or valid if there’s evidence to the contrary. Just like the audio on the Stash the other day of lawmakers voting/debating the merits of legalizing. One of the men stated, “I know marijuana is a gateway drug.” Well, the evidence is against that, yet he still feels that he can make that statement and no one corrected him.
We need to fight apathy in our society against truth. We need to be intolerant of willful ignorance. We need to stop accepting belief as an argument. Being civil in discourse (which we definitely need) does not mean we need to accept unproven or disproven positions as valid. So, while many of us may agree with Ron Paul’s positions on some topics that doesn’t mean he’s right on all topics. And while some of his ideas are perfectly sane and evidence based doesn’t mean he’s not bat-sh*t crazy on other topics.
Peace to all,
Paradym on Twitter
Hang in there, Russ. We are getting closer every day to what we are all fighting for, and with this comes the sidetrack arguments to divide us, to counteract us, to stress us. Positive movement is being made right now and we need to keep the momentum going, not get consumed by the “batwars”. Let Ron Paul fight to get us on the gold standard and whatever else; we need your brilliance to keep us informed and inspired. The past couple of weeks of the Stash have been exceptional and you should take pride in your journalistic leadership!
Canadians elected Stephen Harper as their PM. Doesn’t this void you being able to say anything about anyone in government ever again? I’d think your time would be best working against his bat shit crazy policies concerning marijuana.
Pick a politician in the US and you’ll find at least one thing they stand for which is utterly bat shit crazy to the rest of us.
Politics are rough down here. If you can’t take the heat, post on your side of the border.
Did you ever stop to think that your political platform also strikes Canadians as bat shit crazy? Perhaps that’s why you haven’t been elected.
Again, I am not slamming Ron Paul for his cannabis reform activism, I am disagreeing with many of his stated beliefs. While I focus on cannabis policy here, I am not going to muzzle my political opinions on other issues. Where relevant, I will rant on whatever I choose. I feel it is relevant for people who may not know much about Dr. Paul and who might consider supporting him on his cannabis policy alone to understand they’re voting for the entire package, and some of that package is in my opinion, “batshit crazy”. It says something that Dr. Paul’s supporters take such umbrage at this disagreement, as if someone had blasphemed a saint.
Just because someone is right about cannabis that doesn’t make them right about everything (me included). I will always support Dr. Paul’s cannabis reform efforts and most of the time (read prior posts) I don’t even mention anything about my opinions on his other beliefs. But this time I posted an entire video interview where aside from cannabis reform he mentioned things I considered “batshit crazy” (e.g., Great Depression revisionism) and I felt like calling him on it.
But you know, I don’t want to devolve the blog over political disagreements outside of cannabis reform, and I should endeavor to remain as non-partisan as possible on the Stash, so to Rep. Ron Paul and his supporters, I apologize for offering my opinion that some of Dr. Paul’s ideas are “batshit crazy” on a forum dedicated to non-partisan discussions of cannabis law reform.
P.S. Here’s some research:
Russ, you are WAY off this time. It is painfully obvious you have little clue about Ron Paul and should keep your rants directed at Cannabis policy. Please refrain from slamming one of the great cannabis reform activist of our time.
Thank you.
ps. Please at least do a little research about the Federal Income tax and its unconstitutionality before you go bashing Ron Paul on his stance with that.
You make such a reasoned judgment based on reading how much of my editorial opinion? One post? Did you get a chance to read:
I wonder if those posts were “ignorant and unworthy”?
You want elaboration? Here you go:
While Dr. Paul may indeed be the most principled advocate in Congress for ending the drug war, I do not judge a politician solely on the litmus test issue of the drug war. Therefore, I will praise Dr. Paul to my last breath for his introduction and support of hemp bills and medical marijuana bills and legalization bills and for his opposition to all bills that increase the drug war. But he would never get my vote if I lived in Texas and will never get my vote for president, either.
But for truth and consistency’s sake, Marc, if I am going to be calling out prohibitionists on their “Reefer Madness” and mocking them for beliefs you and I probably both agree are “batshit crazy”, I would be a hypocrite for not calling out Dr. Paul for his beliefs that I find “batshit crazy”. We may disagree, but you cannot claim I am inconsistent.
For example, Dr. Paul believes Roe v. Wade was a flawed decision and that a woman’s private medical decisions on reproduction should be subject to the whim of the states, some of which would be perfectly amenable to forcing women to breed against their will. I find that belief “batshit crazy”. Many people agree with me.
Dr. Paul believes that there should be no federal — well, just about no federal anything — but specifically no federal involvement in education, leaving education once again up to the whim of states that like to do things like teach children that homosexuals are evil and that a 6,000-year-old Earth made with all animal species already differentiated is just as valid a scientific explanation for life as scientifically validated natural selection and evolution. That is “batshit crazy”. Most people agree with me.
Dr. Paul, on this very episode of Real Time, spun such a revisionist history of the Great Depression it could’ve been written by Rush Limbaugh and fact checked by Glenn Beck. In the face of eight years of deregulation leading to massive worldwide financial ruin, Dr. Paul is calling for more of the deregulation and tax cuts that have been proven not to work! That is “batshit crazy”. Nearly every respectable economist and historian agrees with me.
What else to mention:
Finally, Marc, I wrote that “he’ll say something so batshit crazy” which is a slightly different context than writing “Ron Paul is batshit crazy”. I say some things that are “batshit crazy”. If you’re really the you your username claims to be, you’ve said some things that are “batshit crazy”. Nothing wrong with that. That’s politics, that’s disagreement, and here on the Stash, we use a more conversational and irreverent tone. Doesn’t mean I don’t respect Dr. Paul or understand that many people who fight for marijuana legalization revere the guy and will react to my opinions much like you have.
I hate NORML calling its most principled advocate in Congress (DR. Paul has voted against every bill to increase the drug war and voted for every bill that protects medical users, recreational users, etc.) ” bat-shit crazy” on some issues. How can a man consistent in his belief of liberty be suddenly “bat-shit crazy”? Please elaborate, rather than slander. To me, that kind of attack on Congressman Paul reveals the writer of the criticism to be INCONSISTENT himself, making the “crazy” one Radical Russ, not Congressman Paul.
Congressman Paul is true and consistent in upholding the written word of the US Constitution. Its not a moveable feast, Russ, nor are Dr. Paul’s principles.
You, Russ, are, in short, simply ignorant and unworthy of editorial privileges at norml.org
Agreed. One thing about Ron Paul, you know he’s not bought and sold by anybody.
Yeah Ron Paul doesn’t exactly take a nuanced approach to politics. Which is exactly why I like him. I certainly disagree with his strict constitutionalism and gold standard ravings, but he is one of the only genuine people in congress. If he says something, he fully believes it, and he takes an honest, principled stand on every issue. And that is what we need more of in Washington.