RAND PAUL for 2016??

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

Previous topic - Next topic

kramarat

#90
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 11:26:01 AM
I find it interesting that Yawn cannot see the violence in forcing a person into a cage and holding them their against their will.

Apparently that is peaceful!

Well I am curious about something.

If one man were to forcibly restrain another, and proceed to whip him or "flog" him, would not this forced physical invasion constitute a violent act?

And if not, why not?

And if we can give our opinion regarding the legitimate use of violence, in society, then should we not be prepared to justify this opinion?

Is that not what makes us human- the ability to use reason to justify our actions and beliefs?

I think yawn is being a little over the top, but I'm not getting into this argument.

My entire point is that our government is both inept and power hungry. When enough citizens call on them to change something they don't like, they say, "Okay, we'll get to work on it."

Now look at where we are. Every single problem in the US can be traced back to Washington, either directly or indirectly. And it's Washington that is driving us over the cliff.

A google search using the terms "citizens against" yields 131 million hits. These are all people, like Yawn, that want the government to be in control of behavior, and are willing to give them the power change the behavior of others, that we don't agree with. Well, the government says yes to everybody. When it comes time for our own behavior to be controlled, we complain about our loss of freedom. It's only good when the government is doing it to someone else, and we agree with it.

If we call on government to go after someone else, it's only a matter of time until our turn comes.

http://search.flashpeak.com/en/search.php?cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&sa=Search&cx=!005235937639662612447%3Ad6zlnt0cblq&sbSource=&customtag=sbtgCmpSearch2&q=citizens+against

If you scroll through the pages, each one of those groups are fighting to get laws enacted or changed to fit what they want.

PS- Politicians don't give a rat's ass about abortion, pot smoking, the environment, gun control, or anything else. All they are concerned with is control, (of us), and maintaining their seat at the table. Every single issue is looked at as vote counts...........that's it.

TowardLiberty

#91
Quote from: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 12:04:28 PM
I think yawn is being a little over the top, but I'm not getting into this argument.

My entire point is that our government is both inept and power hungry. When enough citizens call on them to change something they don't like, they say, "Okay, we'll get to work on it."

Now look at where we are. Every single problem in the US can be traced back to Washington, either directly or indirectly. And it's Washington that is driving us over the cliff.

A google search using the terms "citizens against" yields 131 million hits. These are all people, like Yawn, that want the government to be in control of behavior, and are willing to give them the power change the behavior of others, that we don't agree with. Well, the government says yes to everybody. When it comes time for our own behavior to be controlled, we complain about our loss of freedom. It's only good when the government is doing it to someone else, and we agree with it.

If we call on government to go after someone else, it's only a matter of time until our turn comes.

http://search.flashpeak.com/en/search.php?cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&sa=Search&cx=!005235937639662612447%3Ad6zlnt0cblq&sbSource=&customtag=sbtgCmpSearch2&q=citizens+against

If you scroll through the pages, each one of those groups are fighting to get laws enacted or changed to fit what they want.

Can't argue with anything you say. Just goes to show how politics divides people who otherwise would find cooperation preferable to conflict.

And as this happens, respect for private property erodes and with it the incentive to produce, save or invest.

The state is a parasite. It does not produce. It lives off the production of producers.

Society is takers and makers. Those who pay taxes are makers. Those who are paid taxes are takers.

Over time the makers are incentivized to becomes takers, and then society is on the decline and civilization crumbles. Generally this involves war and inflation.

This is what Yawn misses.

The pot issue is not some fluff issue. It gets right to heart of what is ailing society and destroying civilization: lack of respect for private property rights and the politicization of the law away from a mechanism just to protect property and into something that is inherently arbitrary.

Yawn

First he tries to push the ridiculous notion that JAIL is an "act of violence."  Simply silly.  It is PUNISHMENT thru restricted freedom.

Then he demands repeatedly that I justify jail when he couldn't even accurately state my position. He's a mind reader.

He wasted post after post demanding I justify JAIL--oblivious to the fact that I said every time that I am not a fan of jail as a punishment.

It's a PUNISHMENT that this current culture recognizes as a fitting PUNISHMENT for certain crimes.

I prefer flogging for some crimes and FINES for others because it removes these people from burdening the taxpayer.

He thinks he's a good debater, but he can't follow a simple thread.  He doesn't hear the opposition.  If you can't state the opponent's position honestly, you're arguing with yourself.

If you don't agree with the laws of your state, CHANGE THEM.  My personal views seem to bother this character more than his own politicians that have enacted them.

If they decided to jail you for drug possession/use/distribution, I don't give a damn.  If they fine you instead, I don' give a damn.  If they decide to flog you, I don't give a damn.  It's YOUR state, change it if you can.

You're obsessed with this lesser issue. I'll admit that I rarely read the posts of the Anarchist Libertarians or the Liberals that hit-and-run through here. They are time wasters over their pet issue--they all have one, but I've never seen this poster debate anything except his "right" to go thru life stoned.  Not saying he hasn't brought up other issues, but if he debates like this in other threads, I really don't care.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 12:21:28 PM
First he tries to push the ridiculous notion that JAIL is an "act of violence."  Simply silly.  It is PUNISHMENT thru restricted freedom.

Then he demands repeatedly that I justify jail when he couldn't even accurately state my position. He's a mind reader.

He wasted post after post demanding I justify JAIL--oblivious to the fact that I said every time that I am not a fan of jail as a punishment.

It's a PUNISHMENT that this current culture recognizes as a fitting PUNISHMENT for certain crimes.

I prefer flogging for some crimes and FINES for others because it removes these people from burdening the taxpayer.

He thinks he's a good debater, but he can't follow a simple thread.  He doesn't hear the opposition.  If you can't state the opponent's position honestly, you're arguing with yourself.

If you don't agree with the laws of your state, CHANGE THEM.  My personal views seem to bother this character more than his own politicians that have enacted them.

If they decided to jail you for drug possession/use/distribution, I don't give a damn.  If they fine you instead, I don' give a damn.  If they decide to flog you, I don't give a damn.  It's YOUR state, change it if you can.

You're obsessed with this lesser issue. I'll admit that I rarely read the posts of the Anarchist Libertarians or the Liberals that hit-and-run through here. They are time wasters over their pet issue--they all have one, but I've never seen this poster debate anything except his "right" to go thru life stoned.  Not saying he hasn't brought up other issues, but if he debates like this in other threads, I really don't care.

It looks like this debate has gone right over your head, Yawn.


TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 12:23:48 PM
And there he is again.

I am not alone in thinking you are doing a good job of embarrassing yourself in this thread.

kramarat

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 12:21:28 PM
First he tries to push the ridiculous notion that JAIL is an "act of violence."  Simply silly.  It is PUNISHMENT thru restricted freedom.

Then he demands repeatedly that I justify jail when he couldn't even accurately state my position. He's a mind reader.

He wasted post after post demanding I justify JAIL--oblivious to the fact that I said every time that I am not a fan of jail as a punishment.

It's a PUNISHMENT that this current culture recognizes as a fitting PUNISHMENT for certain crimes.

I prefer flogging for some crimes and FINES for others because it removes these people from burdening the taxpayer.

He thinks he's a good debater, but he can't follow a simple thread.  He doesn't hear the opposition.  If you can't state the opponent's position honestly, you're arguing with yourself.

If you don't agree with the laws of your state, CHANGE THEM.  My personal views seem to bother this character more than his own politicians that have enacted them.

If they decided to jail you for drug possession/use/distribution, I don't give a damn.  If they fine you instead, I don' give a damn.  If they decide to flog you, I don't give a damn.  It's YOUR state, change it if you can.

You're obsessed with this lesser issue. I'll admit that I rarely read the posts of the Anarchist Libertarians or the Liberals that hit-and-run through here. They are time wasters over their pet issue--they all have one, but I've never seen this poster debate anything except his "right" to go thru life stoned.  Not saying he hasn't brought up other issues, but if he debates like this in other threads, I really don't care.

"That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally; not a 20 percent traitor."

Ronald Reagan

Yawn

#97
You do understand that since we have laws against recreational drug use (whether you like it or not), it is YOUR responsibility to prove there is no justification for those laws don't you? 

I provided a list and you ignored it.

Convince us that these widely held positions are not valid.  If not for me, do it for those you might sway.  I'll post the arguments again. 

QuoteBackground:

Drug legalization or decriminalization is opposed by a vast majority of Americans and people around the world.  Leaders in drug prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement adamantly oppose it, as do many political leaders.  However, pro-drug advocacy groups, who support the permissive use of illicit drugs, although small in number, are making headlines.  They are influencing legislation and having a significant impact on the national policy debate in the United States and in other countries.  The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is the oldest drug user lobby in the U.S.  It has strong ties to the Libertarian party, the Drug Policy Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union.  These groups use a variety of strategies which range from outright legalization to de facto legalization under the guise of "medicalization," "harm reduction," crime reduction, hem/marijuana for the environment, free needle distribution to addicts, marijuana cigarettes as medicine, and controlled legalization through taxation.

Rationale:

The use of illicit drugs is illegal because of their intoxicating effects on the brain, damaging impact on the body, adverse impact on behavior, and potential for abuse.  Their use threatens the health, welfare, and safety of all people, of users and non-users alike.

Legalization would decrease price and increase availability.  Availability is a leading factor associated with increased drug use.  Increased use of addictive substances leads to increased addiction.  As a public health measure, statistics show that prohibition was a tremendous success.

Many drug users commit murder, child and spouse abuse, rape, property damage, assault and other violent crimes under the influence of drugs.  Drug users, many of whom are unable to hold jobs, commit robberies not only to obtain drugs, but also to purchase food, shelter, clothing and other goods and services.  Increased violent crime and increased numbers of criminals will result in even larger prison populations.

Legalizing drugs will not eliminate illegal trafficking of drugs, nor the violence associated with the illegal drug trade.  A black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available to all ages in unlimited quantity.

Drug laws deter people from using drugs.  Surveys indicate that the fear of getting in trouble with the law constitutes a major reason not to use drugs.  Fear of the American legal system is a major concern of foreign drug lords.  Drug laws have turned drug users to a drug-free lifestyle through mandatory treatment.  40% - 50% are in treatment as a result of the criminal justice system.

A study of international drug policy and its effects on countries has shown that countries with lax drug law enforcement have had an increase in drug addiction and crime.  Conversely, those with strong drug policies have reduced drug use and enjoy low crime rates.

The United States and many countries would be in violation of international treaty if they created a legal market in cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs.  The U.S. is a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotics & the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and has agreed with other members of the United Nations to control and penalize drug manufacturing, trafficking, and use.  112 nations recently reaffirmed their commitment to strong drug laws.

Permission is granted to reproduce this article,
provided credit is given to Drug Watch International
http://www.drugwatch.org/Against%20Legalization%20of%20Drugs.html[/size]

Yawn

Quote from: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 12:29:50 PM
"That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally; not a 20 percent traitor."

Ronald Reagan

Didn't say he was. He's naive on this issue.  Because he's "not a traitor" doesn't mean I have to agree with him on the 20%.  And why did you address this statement to me (you quoted me and posted it) and not to him?  I have MANY interests. This is not one of them. This is his issue and it is HIS mission to convince little old me who has ZERO impact on his state's laws.  I cannot say enough, I personally DON'T CARE what he does.  That's not enough for him,.  He wants me to agree that drug use shouldn't be punished.  Silly boy!  Not going to happen.

TowardLiberty

#99
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 12:33:41 PM
You do understand that since we have laws against recreational drug use (whether you like it or not), it is YOUR responsibility to prove there is no justification for those laws don't you? 

I provided a list and you ignored it.

Convince us that these wildly help positions are not valid.  If not for me, do it for those you might sway.  I'll post the arguments again.

It would be a pleasure.

QuoteRationale:

The use of illicit drugs is illegal because of their intoxicating effects on the brain, damaging impact on the body, adverse impact on behavior, and potential for abuse.  Their use threatens the health, welfare, and safety of all people, of users and non-users alike.

The very same properties that are listed here describe legal drugs sold by taxing paying, patent holding pharmaceutical companies.

So that doesnt fly.

There are many things that are bad for us, such as cigarettes, alcohol and fast food, yet the government leaves decisions regarding these substances up to the individual. At one point, the government became so zealous as to prohibit alcohol. But that created a black market and the crime and violence that comes with it. And the product became uncertain. Most was water down or cut, and some was toxic enough to kill people. And it did.

The government ended its bone headed policy and the mob lost revenue and power as a result. People stopped dying from poorly made spirits, and the black market in spirits ceased.

There is a parallel here to drugs.

There was a time when cocaine and heroin was sold legally, in tonics and other remedies. Dosage was considered. Quality standards were followed, at least for the time.

Meth and crack didn't exist. And intravenous heroin use and the debilitating effects that follow, was avoided and minimized.

The black market flips this script. Gangs and criminal groups take over production and they dont care about quality control. They do want to increase potency, with little regard to overdoses down the line.

Incentives become distorted and the drug becomes a monster compared to the free market variety.

Lets not pin the consequence of decades of black markets on the intrinsic nature of certain natural substances themselves.
Quote
Legalization would decrease price and increase availability.  Availability is a leading factor associated with increased drug use.  Increased use of addictive substances leads to increased addiction.  As a public health measure, statistics show that prohibition was a tremendous success.

That is half true. It would decrease price. But availability would fall. Your kids will tell you that prescription drugs, pot and other substances are easier to obtain than alcohol. I can attest to this, from my days in high school, some 10 years ago.

But lets not skip over prices falling. That puts a dent into profits. And it redistributes income from small time criminal organizations to large scale corporate conglomerates. The gangs cannot beat the efficiency and price competition that a major commercial enterprise can mount.

Prices fall and the margins on a small scale operation cannot over come the efficiencies gained in large scale production.

This is good for it substitutes a peaceful and contractual market transaction for the previous violence ridden black market that existed in prohibition.

And in this world toxicity, dosage and other considerations, such a legal purchase age, are huge, for this is the realm of legal recourse, as in any other commercial activity.
Quote

Many drug users commit murder, child and spouse abuse, rape, property damage, assault and other violent crimes under the influence of drugs.  Drug users, many of whom are unable to hold jobs, commit robberies not only to obtain drugs, but also to purchase food, shelter, clothing and other goods and services.  Increased violent crime and increased numbers of criminals will result in even larger prison populations.

Not all drug users do, but many do, due to the high costs of drugs, which is a function of the law making their purchase, distribution and production illegal.

Quote
Legalizing drugs will not eliminate illegal trafficking of drugs, nor the violence associated with the illegal drug trade.  A black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available to all ages in unlimited quantity.

That is patent nonsense.

A black market exists where there is a profit to be made in selling something. It is no different than any other business.

When the market is able to organize resources on a commercial level, the price will drop and the margins will be such that there will be no profit incentive to enter in this market.

Alcohol is not sold in unlimited quantities to all ages and yet there is no thriving black market for alcohol to supply the latent "youth demand."

Quote

Drug laws deter people from using drugs.

Sure. And they incentivize others to sell and produce them.

It all depends on your risk preferences.
Quote
  Surveys indicate that the fear of getting in trouble with the law constitutes a major reason not to use drugs.  Fear of the American legal system is a major concern of foreign drug lords.  Drug laws have turned drug users to a drug-free lifestyle through mandatory treatment.  40% - 50% are in treatment as a result of the criminal justice system.

It also accounts for the incredible profits earned by those who ignore the law.
Quote

A study of international drug policy and its effects on countries has shown that countries with lax drug law enforcement have had an increase in drug addiction and crime.  Conversely, those with strong drug policies have reduced drug use and enjoy low crime rates.

The United States and many countries would be in violation of international treaty if they created a legal market in cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs.  The U.S. is a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotics & the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and has agreed with other members of the United Nations to control and penalize drug manufacturing, trafficking, and use.  112 nations recently reaffirmed their commitment to strong drug laws.

Lets get one thing straight.

Prohibitions create black markets. Black markets create obscene profits. Obscene profits lure criminals. Criminals gain obscene profits and form cartels and criminal organizations. And then criminals use violence to enforce contracts and seek retribution.

Prohibition creates violence where it does not have to be.

And secondly if I am open to questioning the legitimacy of US law, why in the world would anyone think I would hold some UN Treaty sacrosanct?

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 12:39:22 PM
Didn't say he was. He's naive on this issue.  Because he's "not a traitor" doesn't mean I have to agree with him on the 20%.  And why did you address this statement to me (you quoted me and posted it) and not to him?  I have MANY interests. This is not one of them. This is his issue and it is HIS mission to convince little old me who has ZERO impact on his state's laws.  I cannot say enough, I personally DON'T CARE what he does.  That's not enough for him,.  He wants me to agree that drug use shouldn't be punished.  Silly boy!  Not going to happen.

I really dont care to get you to agree to anything.

My goal is to show the moral bankruptcy in your position so that people can get a sense of who you are as a person, and to get a sense of what you consider just.

kramarat

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 12:39:22 PM
Didn't say he was. He's naive on this issue.  Because he's "not a traitor" doesn't mean I have to agree with him on the 20%.  And why did you address this statement to me (you quoted me and posted it) and not to him?  I have MANY interests. This is not one of them. This is his issue and it is HIS mission to convince little old me who has ZERO impact on his state's laws.  I cannot say enough, I personally DON'T CARE what he does.  That's not enough for him,.  He wants me to agree that drug use shouldn't be punished.  Silly boy!  Not going to happen.

I was addressing both of you. I just picked a post to respond to. You guys carry on. I don't want to interrupt.

Bluedog

After all the posts about pot use,gay marriage etc. somehow my asking about Rand Paul got lost somehwere--i don't like to see us conservatives(whats left of us) argue among ourselves. come to think of it--New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez is looking better and better but if she has to go up against Hillary she better be prepared.

Yawn

Thanks for breaking up the string.

Do you really consider Hillary a threat?  After all, she lost to an unknown Senator in 2008. I think her time has come and gone.  People are tired of the Clintons and the Bushs

kramarat

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 02:31:24 PM
Thanks for breaking up the string.

Do you really consider Hillary a threat?  After all, she lost to an unknown Senator in 2008. I think her time has come and gone.  People are tired of the Clintons and the Bushs

Anybody they throw up there is a threat. Obama won with no agenda whatsoever, besides attacking the producers and promising more give away programs, and higher spending.

On top of that, the GOP is kicking conservatives to the curb. I'm so pissed off right now I could spit.

The way the republican establishment is behaving, guys like Rand Paul are probably on the hit list, and won't even be around in 2016...................not as a republican anyway.

If the GOP thinks they've got the conservatives as an automatic voting block, they've got an education coming to them. :cursing: