RAND PAUL for 2016??

Started by Bluedog, December 05, 2012, 03:15:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 08:37:17 AM
Here's what's funny.  I posted my problem with Rand Paul over his George Bush/Obama sympathy for 20 million invaders as the reason why I won't vote for him if he runs. It's why I won't vote for Jeb Bush.  It's ONE reason I despise McCain.

Yet the Ron Paul types here latch onto the thread as a debate about RECREATIONAL DRUG USE.  This is where they always go, and it's why they enjoy <1% support.

The country is collapsing and their focus is getting high because they can't handle real life.

Since you dont understand the factors leading to the collapse of this society you dont see the link to drug laws.

This does not mean the link is not there.

Yawn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 08:37:15 AM
I am still waiting on the moral justification for putting another in a cage, like an animal.

You better have a good reason before you stick someone in a cage...

Let's see what it is about drug use/possession that in your mind justifies caging humans?

QuoteI am still waiting on the moral justification for putting another in a cage, like an animal.

WHERE did I say THAT should be the penalty. PROVIDE THE LINK

Can't go anywhere when you misrepresent my views.  Provide the link and MAYBE I'll continue to debate. 

You might be surprised by my view on "jails" and prisons--but you never asked--just ASS U ME

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 08:41:42 AM
WHERE did I say THAT should be the penalty. PROVIDE THE LINK

Can't go anywhere when you misrepresent my views.  Provide the link and MAYBE I'll continue to debate.

You made the claim that you wished it would remain illegal. Well today that means that people can be caged for possessing or distributing it.

If you would prefer a new legal arrangement, by all means, let's hear it.

But let's not pretend that you have made any great noise regarding a personal dissatisfaction with the current regime- which involves caging humans.

kramarat

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 08:37:17 AM
Here's what's funny.  I posted my problem with Rand Paul over his George Bush/Obama sympathy for 20 million invaders as the reason why I won't vote for him if he runs. It's why I won't vote for Jeb Bush.  It's ONE reason I despise McCain.

Yet the Ron Paul types here latch onto the thread as a debate about RECREATIONAL DRUG USE.  This is where they always go, and it's why they enjoy <1% support.

The country is collapsing and their focus is getting high because they can't handle real life.

Am I in that group?

My primary reason for not prosecuting pot possession and use, is that it's a waste of time and money. The government has utterly failed to even make a dent. Why continue trying? The entire war on drugs is a failure. The entire war on poverty is a failure. Even the war on terrorism seems to be creating more of them.

If we don't reassess the way we are doing things, and scaling down the government, we are going to end up completely broke and in the toilet. That day is rushing at us faster and faster.

Yawn

do what you want.

Yes. YOU should be JAILED if you smoke pot if that's the penalty in YOUR state.  I would prefer that you be flogged then released. I'm not a fan of jails.  Biblically, jails were only for holding dangerous criminals who have committed murder, kidnapping, rape etc until EXECUTION.

If not flogging, you should pay a hefty fine then released. 

Not that you ever asked, but THAT is my view of PUNISHMENT.

Jail is used as a PUNISHMENT for BREAKING THE LAW in our culture.  It's a big waste to the taxpayer. If that's the PUNISHMENT in your state, I don't give a damn.

But...
DO WHAT YOU WANT

If you go to jail for it, I don't give a damn--they have my support.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 08:55:57 AM
do what you want.

Yes. YOU should be JAILED if you smoke pot if that's the penalty in YOUR state.  I would prefer that you be flogged then released. I'm not a fan of jails.  Biblically, jails were only for holding dangerous criminals who have committed murder, kidnapping, rape etc until EXECUTION.

If not flogging, you should pay a hefty fine then released. 

Not that you ever asked, but THAT is my view of PUNISHMENT.

Jail is used as a PUNISHMENT for BREAKING THE LAW in our culture.  It's a big waste to the taxpayer. If that's the PUNISHMENT in your state, I don't give a damn.

But...
DO WHAT YOU WANT

If you go to jail for it, I don't give a damn--they have my support.

And you still seem incapable of answering my question.

By what moral justification do we put people in cages who have not themselves violated the rights of others?

A murder or rapist? No problem. They are animals. The morality of it is simple. They lost the right to freedom when they refused to recognize the same rights in others.

But what is the moral argument for caging humans who possess alcohol during prohibition? Or drugs during the war on drugs?

I am not interested in your opinion of how the justice system ought to be organized, Yawn. I am interested in your moral justification of said opinion.

Yawn

#66
Last time.

Take it up with YOUR state. It's between you and them

I'm not your King. I've decreed NOTHING in your state.

I already told you I don't generally agree with jail or prison except for capital offences until EXECUTION.  I support other forms of PUNISHMENT that doesn't burden the taxpayer.  You seem to want to ignore that and act like I have some say in YOUR PUNISHMENT.

You're not even arguing against PUNISHMENT. You keep arguing about "cages"  (the FORM of punishment).

Here's the argument for "caging" youYOU BROKE THE LAW.  If it's the PUNISHMENT for that crime in your state, that's the PUNISHMENT.

Since you seem to dislike it so much, maybe the deterrent value will do it's job.

I still prefer FLOGGING you. If not for pot, then for stupidity.  but a "cage" is fine with me in your case.  Seems to be what you fear. Maybe it'll help you straighten out your life.

I'm done with you on this topic.

Shooterman

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:17:32 AM
Last time.

Take it up with YOUR state. It's between you and them

I'm not your King. I've decreed NOTHING in your state.

You're not even arguing against PUNISHMENT. You keep arguing about "cages."

Here's the argument for "caging" youYOU BROKE THE LAW.  If it's the PUNISHMENT for that crime in your state, that's the PUNISHMENT.

Since you seem to dislike it so much, maybe the deterrent value will do it's job.

I still prefer FLOGGING you. If not for pot, then for stupidity.  but a "cage" is fine with me in your case.  Seems to be what you fear. Maybe it'll help you straighten out your life.

I'm done with you on this topic.

What an arrogant and totally uncalled for statement. You would have been right at home during The Inquisition.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Yawn

You're offended because I tell you the truth.
Quote from: Shooterman on December 06, 2012, 09:27:14 AM
What an arrogant and totally uncalled for statement. You would have been right at home during The Inquisition.

In what way?  You've really said nothing.


TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:17:32 AM
Last time.

Take it up with YOUR state. It's between you and them

I'm not your King. I've decreed NOTHING in your state.

I already told you I don't generally agree with jail or prison except for capital offences until EXECUTION.  I support other forms of PUNISHMENT that doesn't burden the taxpayer.  You seem to want to ignore that and act like I have some say in YOUR PUNISHMENT.

You're not even arguing against PUNISHMENT. You keep arguing about "cages"  (the FORM of punishment).

Here's the argument for "caging" youYOU BROKE THE LAW.  If it's the PUNISHMENT for that crime in your state, that's the PUNISHMENT.

Since you seem to dislike it so much, maybe the deterrent value will do it's job.

I still prefer FLOGGING you. If not for pot, then for stupidity.  but a "cage" is fine with me in your case.  Seems to be what you fear. Maybe it'll help you straighten out your life.

I'm done with you on this topic.

Two things.

First off, you have still not provided a moral argument for caging people, or for flogging people or for fining them.

And secondly, this is not about me. 

I dont know if you realize it or not, but this is an argument about abstractions- the law, morals and ethics, violence and force.

I would be done with this argument if I were you too. Some real shallow thinking has been exposed.

If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, the NAZI's did nothing morally wrong to the Jews. The Jews "broke the law." They were Jewish and the law was Jews had to be rounded up and put into camps.

I am waiting for you to put your philosopher hat on and tell me what right one man has to cage another, if he has not violently victimized anyone?

I have never seen anyone so scared of a question!

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Shooterman on December 06, 2012, 09:27:14 AM
What an arrogant and totally uncalled for statement. You would have been right at home during The Inquisition.

Definitely.

This last post was shamefully cowardly.

Rather than debate like a gentlemen, the poster begins fantasizing about caging me.

What a tool.

Yawn

Quote
First off, you have still not provided a moral argument for caging people, or for flogging people or for fining them.

Since I TOLD YOU I DON'T SUPPORT IT, why do you insist that I "justify" it.

I would have thought you'd argue against punishmnent. YOU HAVEN'T. 

Your argument is that "caging" is violence. It is not.

But I ALREADY TOLD YOU I DON'T SUPPORT IT.

I do support PUNISHMENT.

DO WHAT YOU WANT

If you're PUNISHED, take it up with your authorities.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:38:46 AM
Since I TOLD YOU I DON'T SUPPORT IT, why do you insist that I "justify" it.

I would have thought you'd argue against punishmnent. YOU HAVEN'T. 

Your argument is that "caging" is violence. It is not.

But I ALREADY TOLD YOU I DON'T SUPPORT IT.

I do support PUNISHMENT.



So you support punishing people for drug possession/use/ distribution?

How do you justify it?


Yawn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 09:35:47 AM
Definitely.

This last post was shamefully cowardly.

Rather than debate like a gentlemen, the poster begins fantasizing about caging me.

What a tool.

No, you keep demanding that I justify jailing you.

I told you many times that I don't support that. I even bold the important points and increase the font in the hope that you'll pick up on my position.  You don't.  If your state decides that's the PUNISHMENT for your CRIME.

Do I demand that you justify something you never advocated?

You're just a fool. You insist on going in circles. You have no logic to your argument.  THAT is what pot does to you.

TowardLiberty

#74
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:38:46 AM
Since

Your argument is that "caging" is violence. It is not.

Oh?

So if I hold you down with a few of my friends, bound your hands and place you in a cage, there is no violence involved?

Really?

Good luck with that argument!