|
I like Ron Paul. I'd love to have a couple beers with him and ask him hundreds of questions. I voted for him in the last primaries. However...
Just like back then, I don't think that his tremendous goals for this country are reasonable in scope. If this were a monarchy, maybe, but there's a lot of other politicians in Washington. And while I do like Ron, I'm not a fan of the rest of his party, to be honest.
Further--legalized heroin? Don't any of you have kids? I don't, and nor will I ever if there's a chance that I send them to school in the morning, only to see them in the afternoon in a body bag. Heroin can kill someone very quickly--even the first time it's (ab)used. And the typical rebuttal, that good parenting alone can prevent this scenario, is absolutely inane.
Also worth a quick mention is Ron's age. God knows who his VP would be--and I don't want another Republican who can't even speak correctly in our country's highest seat of power if something bad were to happen.
I think Obama has been holding it together well enough after the mess he inherited, (he certainly aced the Bin Laden issue) and at this point I think he has my vote.
|
I do not think that there would be any state that would legalize heroin given the opportunity. Heroin is one of the deadliest drugs out there, and aside from instant chemical addiction has no positive effect from use.
Welcome to the Drug Education Facility of the Twenty-First Century. You can take any drug you want to, but... do you really want to? Here are some facts.
|
|
You can have all the locks on the doors you want to. That's generally a good idea. And a lot better than having Federal Agents standing there. Who protects you better, yourself, or the Federal Government?
The scariest words in the English language: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
And with that, I have to step down from the argument. I can't say that I agree with you, for the reasons I've mentioned above, but I will defend fully your right to say what you believe in. I just get too emotional over political stuff, which is why I try (and generally fail) to stay away from this thread...
Lifting the federal ban on heroin isnt the same as legalizing heroin anyway. Id imagine it would be still illegal in 50 out of 50 states. But in case it wouldnt here is what happened in Portugal when they decriminilized it.
Also, the point on Paul's age is a fair one, but I am still going to vote based on his ideas. Washington will hopefully get the message.
|
|
Lifting the federal ban on heroin isnt the same as legalizing heroin anyway. Id imagine it would be still illegal in 50 out of 50 states. But in case it wouldnt here is what happened in Portugal when they decriminilized it.
I don't think decriminalization worked at all in Portugal, to be honest, but suppose it did: Portugal is culturally unlike us, and has a 70% smaller population. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
If drugs become legal here, Americans will (ab)use them, whether lethal or not. It's just like fast food--which we know is terrible--yet still consume way too much of.
You know where people wouldn't eat themselves to death like that? Portugal. They're not like us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm waiting until I'm retired before I start doing heroin.
I'm waiting until I'm retired before I start doing heroin.
I hope you have a good retirement package... because I don't think SS will be enough to cover your daily fix.
Oh, I'll be alright. Thanks for your concern, though!
Lifting the federal ban on heroin isnt the same as legalizing heroin anyway. Id imagine it would be still illegal in 50 out of 50 states. But in case it wouldnt here is what happened in Portugal when they decriminilized it.
Also, the point on Paul's age is a fair one, but I am still going to vote based on his ideas. Washington will hopefully get the message.
I have to disagree with you on the legalizing of drugs issue, but I completely admit that I am biased due to poor experiences I had earlier with people who used regularly.
I don't want Ron Paul to be ignored due to his age- he has a lifetime of service behind him, and I don't think he should be seen as too old for the position of the presidency.
We will have to agree to disagree then, on the drug issue. Do not get me wrong, I think drugs are bad bad BAD. But I think the War on Drugs is far worse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe Benjamin Franklin was 80 years old when he was elected President of Pennsylvania (back when it was a colony).
Fun *fact*!
James K. Polk, William Henry Harrison, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were actually dead when elected, and were taxidermed and turned into marionettes in order to serve their country. Harrison didn't "die" a month into his term--his handlers lost the president's head, and he couldn't be made to give speeches.
And just in case you were wondering...
I believe Benjamin Franklin was 80 years old when he was elected President of Pennsylvania (back when it was a colony).Fun *fact*!
James K. Polk, William Henry Harrison, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were actually dead when elected, and were taxidermed and turned into marionettes in order to serve their country. Harrison didn't "die" a month into his term--his handlers lost the president's head, and he couldn't be made to give speeches.
And just in case you were wondering...** spoiler omitted **
Harding was actually a handpuppet.
I started thinking a bit (it happens!) and it sort of struck me as quite a bit of an oxymoron to consider oneself a religious Libertarian...
Even if you (the politician you) don't want to impose your religious doctrine on others, the two still seem to be at odds.
I started thinking a bit (it happens!) and it sort of struck me as quite a bit of an oxymoron to consider oneself a religious Libertarian...
Even if you (the politician you) don't want to impose your religious doctrine on others, the two still seem to be at odds.
Still at it, eh?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. There are a number of tenets in Christian Mysticism that herald freedom, including spiritual and religious freedom.
Freedom is the primary effort of Love. Universal Freedom, that of Divine Love.
He can only hear himself, stardust.
More libertarian chocolate in my socialist peanut butter!
I'm not trying to rile up an atheist vs. theist discussion, honestly, so knock off the personal attacks.
It just seems contrary to believe that e.g. the government shouldn't have a say in what a person does with his or her body (Libertarian stance), yet think that abortion is a sin (religious stance). Or that something should be illegal, based on religious views, yet still call oneself a Libertarian (everything from gay marriage, abortion etc.).
Conflicting views across the board and how do you then know which part guides a candidate's decision (religion or policy) - this goes for any strongly religious candidate?
It also seems to me that it's incredibly easy to run on a presidential platform that consists of "that's up to the states" (i.e. a cop out, IMO) on a whole bunch of fairly hot button issues.
Not really. There are a number of tenets in Christian Mysticism that herald freedom, including spiritual and religious freedom.
Freedom is the primary effort of Love. Universal Freedom, that of Divine Love.
There are, however, also many, many places that advocate subservience (primarily for women) and rules and regulations for how to live one's life (and how others should live theirs). That's hardly a beacon of freedom or Libertarianism.
I'm having all kinds of thoughts about how belief in the separation of church and state doesn't preclude one from having a church, but, on second thought, I see no reason to make arguments on behalf of my (ideological) enemies.
At Gentle Giant. I dont really see the problem here. If one is a truly dedicated Christian, why would it matter if, for instance, abortion was illegal? After all would God, herself (himself, itself, whichever), not judge any offending parties in the afterlife far better than any mortal could? As for gay marriage, I think the religious libertarian viewpoint is that Government should not be in the business of marrying anybody, no matter their sexual orientation. Marriage is an entirely religious concept. Now a generic "civil union" that anyone could apply for to determine certain legal considerations (for instance, who may be present during a childbirth) is something that government could do. So to sum up, anti gay marriage, but anti hetero marriage too.
It also seems to me that it's incredibly easy to run on a presidential platform that consists of "that's up to the states" (i.e. a cop out, IMO) on a whole bunch of fairly hot button issues.
I must ask, why do you consider the tenth amendment a cop out? If I lived in California, i would be horrified if Iowa tried to force their values upon me, just as I would be horrified if I lived in Kansas and New York imposed their values upon me. In short, its why I believe in libertarianism. We are too varied and diverse of a people here in America to have one set of values to rule us all. The federal government should only be involved in that which benefits us all. (National DEFENSE*, the coining of money, etc. The big stuff. The finer points should be left to the states.) Thats the whole point(IMO) of the tenth amendment.
*I capped defense to highlight that I mean actual defense, not military adventurism.
|
There are, however, also many, many places that advocate subservience (primarily for women) and rules and regulations for how to live one's life (and how others should live theirs). That's hardly a beacon of freedom or Libertarianism.Not really. There are a number of tenets in Christian Mysticism that herald freedom, including spiritual and religious freedom.
Freedom is the primary effort of Love. Universal Freedom, that of Divine Love.
And as with most things, it is not so easy to look at so simplistically. Please do not lump everyone into what to me seems a very narrow outlook. It is not becoming of such an otherwise intelligent poster.
There are, however, also many, many places that advocate subservience (primarily for women) and rules and regulations for how to live one's life (and how others should live theirs). That's hardly a beacon of freedom or Libertarianism.Not really. There are a number of tenets in Christian Mysticism that herald freedom, including spiritual and religious freedom.
Freedom is the primary effort of Love. Universal Freedom, that of Divine Love.
I agree 100%. But I also know that just because someone believes something does not necessarily mean that they want to impose those beliefs on others. Its something that the population should rightly be vigilant for.
It just seems contrary to believe that e.g. the government shouldn't have a say in what a person does with his or her body (Libertarian stance), yet think that abortion is a sin (religious stance). Or that something should be illegal, based on religious views, yet still call oneself a Libertarian (everything from gay marriage, abortion etc.).
Conflicting views across the board and how do you then know which part guides a candidate's decision (religion or policy) - this goes for any strongly religious candidate?
Just because someone believes something is a sin does not mean it should be regulated or controlled by government. S!$!, lying is a sin yet Christians even vote for liars. Atheists don't like lying yet they too vote for liars. Many people who believe marijuana should be decriminalized think it's wrong to take drugs recreationaly.
Everything is life is a balance of opposing values. This is what the practice of ethics is for.
So... there is no issue here. I don't even see the point in asking the question unless you want to start creating pointless issues with religion again. And with your last episode of generalizing and basically acting like a jerk, it's pretty natural for us to assume you're doing it again.
At Gentle Giant. I dont really see the problem here. If one is a truly dedicated Christian, why would it matter if, for instance, abortion was illegal? After all would God, herself (himself, itself, whichever), not judge any offending parties in the afterlife far better than any mortal could? As for gay marriage, I think the religious libertarian viewpoint is that Government should not be in the business of marrying anybody, no matter their sexual orientation. Marriage is an entirely religious concept. Now a generic "civil union" that anyone could apply for to determine certain legal considerations (for instance, who may be present during a childbirth) is something that government could do. So to sum up, anti gay marriage, but anti hetero marriage too.
I agree that religious institutions can have their (non-legal binding) ceremony and that the government should issue civil unions, giving the current rights of marriage, to those who want to "get hitched."
However, we all know that's not going to change for the foreseeable future, so running on such a platform is an empty gesture.I must ask, why do you consider the tenth amendment a cop out? If I lived in California, i would be horrified if Iowa tried to force their values upon me, just as I would be horrified if I lived in Kansas and New York imposed their values upon me. In short, its why I believe in libertarianism. We are too varied and diverse of a people here in America to have one set of values to rule us all. The federal government should only be involved in that which benefits us all. (National DEFENSE*, the coining of money, etc. The big stuff. The finer points should be left to the states.) Thats the whole point(IMO) of the tenth amendment.
*I capped defense to highlight that I mean actual defense, not military adventurism.
I admit that this is, of course, a matter of differing views. I just see some of the hot button issues as requiring a concern for the whole country, not just a state issue. Clinging to the very rigid wording of the Constitution is, to me, something that is a concern when running for President, since you're going to represent ALL of the people in the country (and would probably have no problem legislating one way or the other on these issues if you were running in a state capacity).
Was meant as a joke not an attack I am sorry if you took it that way.
Fair enough, but, lacking the absence of inflection in the written language, it's common nowadays to include smileys to indicate such things. ;-)
And as with most things, it is not so easy to look at so simplistically. Please do not lump everyone into what to me seems a very narrow outlook. It is not becoming of such an otherwise intelligent poster.
Thank you. The disconnect I see, though, is that you're (general religious Libertarian you) are willing to have one (or more) "master(s)" (religious) telling you how to run your life, while espousing the dangers of having another (government) telling you how to run your life.
And republicans are notorious for claiming to be pro small government, while readily regulating people's lifes through government, based on religious beliefs. So, seriously, how would a candidate fare bucking the party line to such a wide extent?Just because someone believes something is a sin does not mean it should be regulated or controlled by government. S&&#, lying is a sin yet Christians even vote for liars. Atheists don't like lying yet they too vote for liars. Many people who believe marijuana should be decriminalized think it's wrong to take drugs recreationaly.
Everything is life is a balance of opposing values. This is what the practice of ethics is for.So... there is no issue here. I don't even see the point in asking the question unless you want to start creating pointless issues with religion again. And with your last episode of generalizing and basically acting like a jerk, it's pretty natural for us to assume you're doing it again.
There IS an issue here. Taking issue with a candidate's stance on important matter isn't being a jerk, it's shining a light on what I see as a disconnect/hypocrisy.
It's questioning whether a candidate can be considered a serious candidate if his stance bucks the trend of the party line in a two-party system as widely divided as the US one.I agree that to a large degree it's a balance, I'm just questioning those who support Paul where they see him landing on those issues and whether doing so doesn't amount to a certain amount of hypocrisy.
... I'm just questioning those who support Paul where they see him landing on those issues and whether doing so doesn't amount to a certain amount of hypocrisy...
And it's a fair question asked at large.
Consdier that atheists also have values. Just because they value this or that, however, does not mean that they will write their values in stone. SKR for example may want children to be banned from his favorite restaurants. That doesn't mean that he'll do it if he's a president, and it doesn't make him a hypocrite to want children out of his favorite restaurant, yet be unwilling to actually legislate it.
See, you have framed this as an issue related to Christian hypocrisy when it isn't.
You might instead say something like this: Christianity describe one (variable) set of values. Libertarianism another: namely to maximize individual freedom and minimize the meddling of the state. I wonder to where Paul will balance his values as a Christian and his values as a Libertarian? What will he want to legislate, and not legislate. THAT IS A FAIR QUESTION.
For Paul to balance these values is not hypocritical at all. It is quite simply to do what all of us do every day in our lives. To suggest that he is somehow hypocritical is plain and simple trolling (especially considering your last pathetic kick at Christians).
Lifting the federal ban on heroin isnt the same as legalizing heroin anyway. Id imagine it would be still illegal in 50 out of 50 states. But in case it wouldnt here is what happened in Portugal when they decriminilized it.I don't think decriminalization worked at all in Portugal, to be honest, but suppose it did: Portugal is culturally unlike us, and has a 70% smaller population. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
If drugs become legal here, Americans will (ab)use them, whether lethal or not. It's just like fast food--which we know is terrible--yet still consume way too much of.
You know where people wouldn't eat themselves to death like that? Portugal. They're not like us.
I do think our population is the biggest issue with respect to something like legalization of drugs, as well as a few other hot button topics.
|
|
I do think our population is the biggest issue with respect to something like legalization of drugs, as well as a few other hot button topics.Lifting the federal ban on heroin isnt the same as legalizing heroin anyway. Id imagine it would be still illegal in 50 out of 50 states. But in case it wouldnt here is what happened in Portugal when they decriminilized it.I don't think decriminalization worked at all in Portugal, to be honest, but suppose it did: Portugal is culturally unlike us, and has a 70% smaller population. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
If drugs become legal here, Americans will (ab)use them, whether lethal or not. It's just like fast food--which we know is terrible--yet still consume way too much of.
You know where people wouldn't eat themselves to death like that? Portugal. They're not like us.
I would have to disagree, I think that drug education can have a huge influence on what drugs are taken, and not the oversimplified "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs." ad-line either. I found it interesting that the drug study Reagan put together in the 80s suggested the decriminalization of marijuana because it has little negative side effects. I heard, from my brother, who might know a little more about this than I do, that Reagan insisted the study re-evaluate the effects of marijuana and force findings in agreements with the War on Drugs policy established by the Nixon administration.
Another government-funded study is recommending the decriminalization of marijuana, and again TPTB are laughing at the whole thing.
Anyway, will people do stupid things? Yes. And they don't need illegal drugs to do them either. There's certainly a culture in the US which provides for people to do stupid things, and a free society should allow natural selection to take effect. Many Americans have a talent for ignoring warning signs, educational measures, and labels of ill health. Does that mean we should make illegal the stupid actions they insist on doing? No. Only those actions which endanger the populace at large should be illegal. Driving under the influence of alcohol (or marijuana, for that matter) would definitely be a social concern. Private consumption of alcohol (or marijuana) in a safe and stable environment, is neither illegal nor inherently dangerous.
Pregnant women should not drink alcohol, so society warns us. But when the government steps in and puts a 'cannot' or a 'shall not', where society puts a 'should not', a free society must be necessarily alarmed.
Again, education can be a potent force of good in a free society. Not an education that forces particular moral imperatives down the throats of individuals (as in our previous Drug Abuse Education programs), but an educational force that focuses on ethnobotanical science and neurological chemistry could be incredibly beneficial.
LSD, for example, is an extremely potent drug that should not be taken socially. Acid Trips are generally not good, positive, or uplifting experiences. However, leaps and bounds have been made in the science of LSD-assisted psychotherapy, since LSD basically has the effect of turning the mind inside out, forcing subconscious beliefs and patterns to the experiencial level of mental awareness.
I'm certain I could go through some other drugs here. I once wrote a paper on Ecstasy for my class on Personality and Culture. My point being that legalization of drugs could allow people to discuss them and companies to experiment with them openly and legally. What if certain drugs could be manufactured without side effects or the threat of physical or psychological addiction? We may never know if the market is not permitted to experiment with them.
Medical marijuana, LSD-assisted psychotherapy, are just two examples of how drugs now viewed as anathema have proven to be effective when used in controlled and careful environments.
LSD, for example, is an extremely potent drug that should not be taken socially. Acid Trips are generally not good, positive, or uplifting experiences.
I strongly disagree.
They might not be for everyone, but I've always found them to be a blast.
It's a shame that we're moving in three different directions on this.
LSD, for example, is an extremely potent drug that should not be taken socially. Acid Trips are generally not good, positive, or uplifting experiences.
Gosh, I must have done something wrong.
Is it hypocrasy to hold certain values and yet not vote that way because they (should) have nothing to do with running a government?
I myslef am best described as pro-life. But, if a canidate can fix the coutnry fiscally, but is not pro-life, I will vote for him.
I honestly do not care about gay marriage one way or the other. They shoudl have access to things Americans get becasue they are Americans, not limited due to sexual preference. If a canidate can fix our debt problems and get us back in the black, THAT is more important.
All these other little BS issues are non-sequitor.
A government should not drive or legislate social policies by cutting up people into groups and them worrying about catering to all of them. We are all Americans, protect us and let us live our own lives, and we'll pay taxes happily.
/end rant
Further more, once we realize that founding principles or not, we are a country that allows religious freedom, not a religious country that tolerates atheists, we'll be doing much better.
I certainly agree with people that are fearful that a politician that is religious will answer to their religious "master" and force that will on the rest of us. I mean, look at Kennedy. Without a doubt, just as many feared at the time, as a Catholic, he bowed to the will of the Pope and did exactly as he was told. With undeniable proof like that, can any of us trust people like Rep. Paul to not act exactly like Kennedy did with respect to his religion? I don't think so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly agree with people that are fearful that a politician that is religious will answer to their religious "master" and force that will on the rest of us. I mean, look at Kennedy. Without a doubt, just as many feared at the time, as a Catholic, he bowed to the will of the Pope and did exactly as he was told. With undeniable proof like that, can any of us trust people like Rep. Paul to not act exactly like Kennedy did with respect to his religion? I don't think so.
Good -- we have one example who didn't. We also have the example of Huckabee in '08, who told us we needed to amend the Constitution to "bring it more in line with Scripture."
It's not "all will" or "all won't." It's a matter of understanding that some will, and trying to anticipate which ones. Which is hard to do.
I suspect it's more that for all his libertarian non-interference credentials Ron Paul, like most libertarian politicians, has cast his lot with the party that wants government out of your business and into your bedroom.
Remember that Kennedy, before his election, addressed this and specifically promised he would not be ruled by his religion. The current Republican trend (and to a lesser extent Democratic as well) is to promise you will govern more in line with the more extreme fundamentalist Christian beliefs than your opponents.
Has Paul actually broken with the Republican orthodoxy on any of the hot-button social issues? Abortion, gay marriage (or even Civil Unions), creationism? Either in campaign speeches or in votes on legislation?
Why do most libertarians support the Republican party? (At least when they don't go 3rd party.) Is it just that the tax cuts and small government rhetoric trump all the other issues? Not that Republicans have delivered small government in my life time, just bigger deficits.
|
|
Has Paul actually broken with the Republican orthodoxy on any of the hot-button social issues? Abortion, gay marriage (or even Civil Unions), creationism? Either in campaign speeches or in votes on legislation?
Ron Paul is personally opposed to abortion, but wants to delegate the authority to ban or allow abortions to the state governments. He has said this repeatedly in a number of speeches.
Gay marriage is apparently a hot topic, even for his campaign. However, he has said several times in interviews and debates that the government has no business in marriage anyway, and that the government should not decide who can marry who, or what the nature of that marriage should be like. He has also said to a person who asked him about Gay marriage, "They have freedom of contract, and they can call it whatever they want." He said in the 2008 campaign that it should be a matter determined by the states.
As for Evolution or Creationist, you might look up earlier in this thread at the arguments already posted there. The fact that he personally does not believe in Evolution is often held against him, though it is well known that he has never attempted to force this belief either through law or policy, on others. I do not think he has yet answered what he believes in as an alternative, and he does not believe that the question is relative to presidential candidacy.
I do not personally believe the question is relative to presidential candidacy either, but there are schools of thought that believe that it is.
|
|
Ron Paul is like an uncle at the family gathering who says things about the family that no one else is willing to say and that you tend to agree with, but the more he talks you begin to realize that he is a little off his rocker and possibly racist.
I think someone who is the greatest defender of personal rights and liberties and the rights of the individual, should not be called a racist (or possible racist).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ron Paul is like an uncle at the family gathering who says things about the family that no one else is willing to say and that you tend to agree with, but the more he talks you begin to realize that he is a little off his rocker and possibly racist.I think someone who is the greatest defender of personal rights and liberties and the rights of the individual, should not be called a racist (or possible racist).
You mean Captain America, right? I don't think he's a racist.
Ron Paul on the other hand is an Ayn Rand-worshiping nutball who would like to turn back the clock to the 19th Century. He's a philosophical iceberg. The 10% or so you immediately see makes sense and you are glad he is saying the things that he is saying, but underneath there is 90% untenable bullshiat.
If our greatest defender of liberty is a pie-in-the-sky, anti-choice Libertarian crank, then we are in serious trouble.