Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Political Discussion and Debate => Topic started by: Bluedog on December 05, 2012, 03:15:51 AM

Title: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Bluedog on December 05, 2012, 03:15:51 AM
I been hearing alot of chatter on the internet about US SENATOR RAND PAUL running for the wh in 2016. i don't know that much about him yet but will read up more about him. what is the forum's opinion on him if any? thank you
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 05, 2012, 03:33:38 AM
He would be my #1 pick.

The weak republican establishment won't let it happen though. Conservatism scares them.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 03:59:02 AM
Hell NO!

Pot and Amnesty. Rand Paul's New Agenda for the GOP
(http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pot-and-amnesty-rand-pauls-surprising-new-agenda-for-the-gop/)
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 05, 2012, 04:16:21 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 03:59:02 AM
Hell NO!

Pot and Amnesty. Rand Paul's New Agenda for the GOP
(http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pot-and-amnesty-rand-pauls-surprising-new-agenda-for-the-gop/)

So the official position of the GOP, should be that we are going to throw people in prison for possession of pot, and that we are going to put 20-30 million people on buses and send them back to Mexico?

Yeah. There's a winning platform. 2016 will be a slam dunk. :rolleyes:

Lets face it. Prosecuting weed possession is a waste of time and money. And the reason we have so many illegals, is due to our hunger for cheap labor. The genie is out of the bottle.

For the illegals that are working and productive, a path to citizenship, and getting them on the tax roles, is the only thing that makes sense. We should concentrate on getting the criminals and non-producers out of here.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: redlom xof on December 05, 2012, 04:30:25 AM
Milton Friedman on illegal immigration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nniuaZuP_vo#)

Youtube clip of Milton Friedman talking about illegal immigration.


Connecting it to economic policies and the history of the USA.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: keyboarder on December 05, 2012, 04:47:40 AM
Rand Paul?  No.  I still can't wrap my small brain around the fact that we have so many unemployed while bringing in another million or so aliens to take their place on the dole with us.  It's the getting them working and productive that bothers me when no jobs are being created for them.  How's it supposed to work any better for them than it does us?  The employment offices are full of ready to work citizens that can't find a job because not near enough of them are available.  There's a process, I'm told, at the local job sources here of matching you up to your most recent work description and if there are none of these you are advised to go to school.  Benefits are for twenty weeks now and then you are on your own, job or no job.  Will we have to school the aliens too?  Will we have to provide for their food and heathcare and housing as well while they get on that path to citizenship or is that the plan, to keep them up until they acquire everything they should need to stay here? 

I don't favor Paul's attitude towards Israel.  We are allies and we should consider their interests as well as our own and to abandon them, of all nations, would spell real trouble for us. 
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 05, 2012, 04:56:39 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on December 05, 2012, 04:30:25 AM
Milton Friedman on illegal immigration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nniuaZuP_vo#)

Youtube clip of Milton Friedman talking about illegal immigration.


Connecting it to economic policies and the history of the USA.

Brilliant as usual.

His implication is that the creation of the perpetual welfare state, (by our government), destroyed the idea of immigration being a healthy component of the country. He's right.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Bluedog on December 05, 2012, 04:57:25 AM
thank you keyboarder--i didn't know Rand Paul's position's on immigration and Israel till now--i am crossing Rand Paul off my 2016 gop list.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 05:13:47 AM
Quoteand that we are going to put 20-30 million people on buses and send them back to Mexico?

Screw the damn pot issue. I'm so tired of the selfish crying about getting high.

As far as ILLEGAL immigration, THIS is what I've been talking about.  NEITHER party supported this until recently.  Now the Repubs have joined the Dems and it's going to happen.  But guess what?  I WON'T vote if a candidate supports it.

Go ahead and push for it and I guarantee you'll have another LOSER in 2016.

And no, what you do is stop dangling carrots in front of people who have broken your nation's laws.  You stop giving them benefits, and yes, if they've been picked up and found to be here ILLEGALLY, you send them home. 

Like I said, there was a time that a LEGAL immigrant had to prove he wouldn't be a burden on the American Taxpayer.

I'm sure you would call the police if someone ILLEGALLY broke into your house, wouldn't you?

The question is, WHY do you support open borders when we have, in reality, 20% unemployment with fathers who can't feed their families and keep their homes?

Why do you support allowing terrorists to sneak across our southern border?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: keyboarder on December 05, 2012, 05:23:57 AM
Quote from: Bluedog on December 05, 2012, 04:57:25 AM
thank you keyboarder--i didn't know Rand Paul's position's on immigration and Israel till now--i am crossing Rand Paul off my 2016 gop list.  :thumbup:

Just my opinion, and I'm still learning from the sages here.  I am bewildered by this last election but some here that seem really informed like Yawn, Krama, Solar, and Billy can shed light on any of the mess we're in.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Solar on December 05, 2012, 05:27:13 AM
Quote from: Bluedog on December 05, 2012, 04:57:25 AM
thank you keyboarder--i didn't know Rand Paul's position's on immigration and Israel till now--i am crossing Rand Paul off my 2016 gop list.  :thumbup:
Then you should read them for yourself and not take someones opinion on the matter.
It's what sets us apart from other forums, "facts".

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/22/rand-paul-and-israel (http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/22/rand-paul-and-israel)
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 05, 2012, 05:28:02 AM
QuoteThe question is, WHY do you support open borders when we have, in reality, 20% unemployment with fathers who can't feed their families and keep their homes?

Why do you support allowing terrorists to sneak across our southern border?

Where did I say that? :confused:

I'm for securing the borders, no welfare or entitlements for illegals, and sending home anyone that is caught breaking the law.

On the other hand, I think a realistic approach would be to issue tempory visas, (green cards), to people that got here illegally, but are otherwise productive members of society, get them on the tax roles, and get them started on the same arduous process that everyone else has to go through to become a citizen.

Your ideas are great.................they'll just never win any elections. Ever.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Darth Fife on December 05, 2012, 06:09:35 AM
The Republican Elite will not allow Rand Paul to get the nomination - end of story.

I read somewhere that half of the illegal aliens currently in the U.S. came here during "W"'s tenure in the White House, the other have are evenly divided between Clinton and Obama. Illegal immigration serves the power base of both the Democrat and Republican parties. It will not be stopped while they control the government.

Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Solar on December 05, 2012, 06:10:04 AM
 Yawn and K, do me a favor, use the full quote feature when responding to another poster, so the rest of us don't have to hunt for the person being quoted.
Thanks.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: redlom xof on December 05, 2012, 06:11:46 AM
QuoteThe Republican Elite will not allow Rand Paul to get the nomination - end of story.

I read somewhere that half of the illegal aliens currently in the U.S. came here during "W"'s tenure in the White House, the other have are evenly divided between Clinton and Obama. Illegal immigration serves the power base of both the Democrat and Republican parties. It will not be stopped while they control the government.

Post of the day. Completely agree.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 05, 2012, 06:25:32 AM
I love how conservatives talk so high and mighty about "illegals" taking "our" jobs.

They never mention the underlying problem- the welfare system.

If not for the welfare system illegal immigration would be a non-issue, except for the racists.

But welfare is not the source of conservative indignation regarding immigration. In fact, many would become just as indignant, if not more, if some proposed ending these transfer payments.

And the idea that immigration is bad for the economy is simply ignorance.

First off, when a person or a family moves into a new place, they have to purchase the services and goods made by others in this area in order to survive.

So the addition of more mouths to feed creates jobs as there are more needs to fill.

Jobs are not static.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 06:40:29 AM
QuoteI love how conservatives talk so high and mighty about "illegals" taking "our" jobs.

They never mention the underlying problem- the welfare system.

No. Conservatives never talk about welfare! Damn those Conservatives. 

QuoteIf not for the welfare system illegal immigration would be a non-issue, except for the racists.

And there it is.  Cries of "RACISM!"  are the last refuge of Libs who can't win an argument.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 05, 2012, 06:50:25 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 06:40:29 AM
No. Conservatives never talk about welfare! Damn those Conservatives. 

And there it is.  Cries of "RACISM!"  are the last refuge of Libs who can't win an argument.

Can't win an argument!?

I am doing good so far.. you haven't even tried to mount a defense of the point of view I am attacking.

It must already have been mortally wounded, in my first post!

Funny that you write off my words as those of a "liberal."

Again you show unfamiliarity with political designations.

Tell us again about how anarchist libertarians are leftists and the founders were "conservatives!" haha
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Shooterman on December 05, 2012, 06:54:35 AM
Quote from: Bluedog on December 05, 2012, 03:15:51 AM
I been hearing alot of chatter on the internet about US SENATOR RAND PAUL running for the wh in 2016. i don't know that much about him yet but will read up more about him. what is the forum's opinion on him if any? thank you

If he runs, I will support and vote for him. Any of the other PUB Clowns, and I will vote Constitution Party.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Solar on December 05, 2012, 07:02:31 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on December 05, 2012, 06:54:35 AM
If he runs, I will support and vote for him. Any of the other PUB Clowns, and I will vote Constitution Party.
Same here, Rand is walking a fine line with the establishment, he can't go against the grain too much for risk of alienation of the party, nor does he want to loo like one of them.
I will go with my gut instincts and the fact he was raised by Ron and is very close to his father.
I think Rand is more of a pragmatist than dad.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Bluedog on December 05, 2012, 07:09:15 AM
Solar--for your info--i knew about Rand Paul's positions--i just wanted to get some of the other forum members opinions on him.thank you :thumbup:
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Solar on December 05, 2012, 07:22:55 AM
Quote from: Bluedog on December 05, 2012, 07:09:15 AM
Solar--for your info--i knew about Rand Paul's positions--i just wanted to get some of the other forum members opinions on him.thank you :thumbup:
You're welcome BD, it's what sets us apart from other forums, we do not settle for second hand info like the libs do.
When making claims, one is subject to back up what they say.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 05, 2012, 08:06:55 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 05, 2012, 06:10:04 AM
Yawn and K, do me a favor, use the full quote feature when responding to another poster, so the rest of us don't have to hunt for the person being quoted.
Thanks.

Good point. It bugs me when other people do it. It makes sense that others don't want to go hunting either. :biggrin:
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: BILLY Defiant on December 05, 2012, 02:17:40 PM
I think he has a lot on the ball, I like the fact he is standing tall over the tax issue, I liked it when he embarassed Obamao by publicly introducing a bill to get the Pakistani Doctor who gave up UBL out of jail because of the administrations unforgivable outing of him.

The down side is the pot and the fact he is rather young and inexperienced. I don't like the stance on immigration either. I suppose I can overlook those things

The BIG downside is he is a white male.....Like I said before we better run a non white or a female if we want to recapture the WH in 2016....I can bet you my last dollar that HILLARY is going to be the Dem pick and you better have your act together to go against her.

Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: JustKari on December 05, 2012, 02:35:04 PM
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on December 05, 2012, 02:17:40 PM
I think he has a lot on the ball, I like the fact he is standing tall over the tax issue, I liked it when he embarassed Obamao by publicly introducing a bill to get the Pakistani Doctor who gave up UBL out of jail because of the administrations unforgivable outing of him.

The down side is the pot and the fact he is rather young and inexperienced. I don't like the stance on immigration either. I suppose I can overlook those things

The BIG downside is he is a white male.....Like I said before we better run a non white or a female if we want to recapture the WH in 2016....I can bet you my last dollar that HILLARY is going to be the Dem pick and you better have your act together to go against her.

I think Susanna Martinez might be one to watch.  She has a conservative viewpoint, I really enjoyed listening to her at the RNc convention.  I found her very likeable, not sure what her stance is on Illegal immigration.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susana_Martinez (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susana_Martinez)
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 03:02:19 PM
I'm actually a fan (or at least was) of Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.  I've been disappointed the last couple weeks by their positions on a few issues.  George Bush is another with his recent comments about ILLEGAL aliens--he, and the Libs, call them simply "immigrants."  They are not. They are invaders and colonizers.

There are 3 issues that are deal breakers to me.  If the candidate comes out as an active supporter of any of these, they WILL NOT get my vote, regardless of the outcome.

1) Abortion - they better not be active supporters of abortion "rights"
2) ILLEGAL Immigration - If they talk about "Pathways to citizenship" or "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" they won't get my vote
3) Redefining Marriage - It has a definition. If they advocate changing that, they won't get my vote.

Quote"As our nation debates the proper course of action on immigration reform, I hope we do so with a benevolent spirit and keep in mind the contributions of immigrants."

Those contributions include "new skills and new ideas," he said, adding that immigrants "fill a critical gap in our labor market. Source (http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2012/dec/05/george-w-bush-lawful-welcoming-immigration-policy/)

BS!!  These are not IMMIGRANTS.  They bring NO skills and are a drain on the Taxpayer.  Democrats support it for cheap votes and Repubs support it for cheap labor.  The People are the losers.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: BILLY Defiant on December 05, 2012, 03:02:20 PM
Quote from: JustKari on December 05, 2012, 02:35:04 PM
I think Susanna Martinez might be one to watch.  She has a conservative viewpoint, I really enjoyed listening to her at the RNc convention.  I found her very likeable, not sure what her stance is on Illegal immigration.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susana_Martinez (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susana_Martinez)

Yeah I like her...She comes from a family of Cops and ran a security company so we'd have a lot in common... :wink:

She is not in favor of  the Amnesty and does support immigration reform.

What I like about her is how she straightened out the deficet in her state by such austerity measures as taking away perks for Govt employee's phones, cars, slush funds etc.

If they are gonna run Hillary...we better run a Female.

Plus I'd like to see a (Conservative) Female Prez

Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Shooterman on December 05, 2012, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 03:02:19 PM
I'm actually a fan (or at least was) of Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.  I've been disappointed the last couple weeks by their positions on a few issues.  George Bush is another with his recent comments about ILLEGAL aliens--he, and the Libs, call them simply "immigrants."  They are not. They are invaders and colonizers.

There are 3 issues that are deal breakers to me.  If the candidate comes out as an active supporter of any of these, they WILL NOT get my vote, regardless of the outcome.

1) Abortion - they better not be active supporters of abortion "rights"
2) ILLEGAL Immigration - If they talk about "Pathways to citizenship" or "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" they won't get my vote
3) Redefining Marriage - It has a definition. If they advocate changing that, they won't get my vote.

BS!!  These are not IMMIGRANTS.  They bring NO skills and are a drain on the Taxpayer.  Democrats support it for cheap votes and Repubs support it for cheap labor.  The People are the losers.

Did you vote for Romney? At one time or another, depending on the day, hour, minute, and place, he has supported everyone of your deal breakers.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 03:27:04 PM
Yes. I voted. And I was happy to vote for Romney.   Did you even vote?

Here's the difference. I believe Romney is an HONEST man.  I won't rehash all the arguments here.  I BELIEVE his stance on abortion and gay shacking up, and ILLEGAL Invasion.

He wasn't very bold, but he was bold on those issues. I respect him for taking a stance that so many,--even here say may have cost him the election.

I also KNOW that Rubio and Paul are honest men.  But they took a stand as Conservatives for a position that's a deal breaker for me.  They're great where they're at, but unless they have an awakening in the next four years and they can convince me of it, neither would get my vote because of their stance on those issues.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Shooterman on December 05, 2012, 03:55:06 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 03:27:04 PM
Yes. I voted. And I was happy to vote for Romney.   Did you even vote?

Here's the difference. I believe Romney is an HONEST man.  I won't rehash all the arguments here.  I BELIEVE his stance on abortion and gay shacking up, and ILLEGAL Invasion.

My point is it changed with the wind over the years. At heart he is a liberal, and always has been.

Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Solar on December 05, 2012, 04:16:50 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on December 05, 2012, 03:55:06 PM
My point is it changed with the wind over the years. At heart he is a liberal, and always has been.
What's your point? You said you would vote for him as well...

Quote from: Shooterman on October 20, 2012, 10:13:19 AM
So I have been told more times than I can say grace over.

Even though every fiber of my being says that Mitzi is but one turd higher on the political evolutionary scale than Obama, I am being forced to make a choice between conscience and hoping for the best. I've made my choice to squeeze out a big one, on the mail in ballot, for Romney. I am hoping he doesn't turn out to be a Romnaba.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Shooterman on December 05, 2012, 04:31:02 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 05, 2012, 04:16:50 PM
What's your point? You said you would vote for him as well...

Yeah, I did, though it mattered little in Texas.  I was hoping to buy a little time. With that said, though, I certainly will not berate any that didn't vote for him.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 04:42:34 PM
That's where I may be in 2016.  I can't even say I'd have to "hold my nose" and vote for a Rubio or a Paul.  I honestly like them both, but I'm watching the Republicans (both those in power and the Republican voter, slipping to the left on so many issues. 

1) Legalize 20 million new Democrat voters HOPING a FEW will vote with us (they won't).
2) Stop bringing up Abortion (what's 50 million dead human lives?)
3) Change society's definition of Marriage (it'll make those with serious mental issues FEEL better)

These are basic MORAL issues the Republican Party is willing to sacrifice for political power. It gets easier as we throw Christianity out the window.

Voting for a Republican who caves on these issues MAY buy the Republic a LITTLE time, but if we cave, it's guaranteed OVER.  I wouldn't withhold my vote to CAUSE the Republic to crash, but I won't give my approval by voting for someone who will work to push any of these things on the nation.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 05, 2012, 05:56:11 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 04:42:34 PM
That's where I may be in 2016.  I can't even say I'd have to "hold my nose" and vote for a Rubio or a Paul.  I honestly like them both, but I'm watching the Republicans (both those in power and the Republican voter, slipping to the left on so many issues. 

1) Legalize 20 million new Democrat voters HOPING a FEW will vote with us (they won't).
2) Stop bringing up Abortion (what's 50 million dead human lives?)
3) Change society's definition of Marriage (it'll make those with serious mental issues FEEL better)

These are basic MORAL issues the Republican Party is willing to sacrifice for political power. It gets easier as we throw Christianity out the window.

Voting for a Republican who caves on these issues MAY buy the Republic a LITTLE time, but if we cave, it's guaranteed OVER.  I wouldn't withhold my vote to CAUSE the Republic to crash, but I won't give my approval by voting for someone who will work to push any of these things on the nation.

It's not the government's job to dictate morality, one way or the other.
The supreme court ruled on abortion. The case is closed. The people that engage in abortion can take the conversation up with their maker.

The duties of the government are spelled out in the constitution. It is intended to be a limited government..............not one that rules according to religious morals. Nor is it one that is allowed to make the determination on whether gays should be able to get married. If anything, it's a state issue.

This is the issue I'm having with the GOP and their weakness. They have no intention of attempting to return to a limited government. In fact, they are kicking conservatives to the curb.

All the GOP is doing, is licking their damned chops in hopes that it will be their turn to rule again. This is utter BS. Our government is working hand in hand to steal our money and our freedom. Only the faces change. Party affiliation seems to mean less and less with every election cycle.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Shooterman on December 05, 2012, 06:07:08 PM
Quote from: kramarat on December 05, 2012, 05:56:11 PM
It's not the government's job to dictate morality, one way or the other.
The supreme court ruled on abortion. The case is closed. The people that engage in abortion can take the conversation up with their maker.

The duties of the government are spelled out in the constitution. It is intended to be a limited government..............not one that rules according to religious morals. Nor is it one that is allowed to make the determination on whether gays should be able to get married. If anything, it's a state issue.

This is the issue I'm having with the GOP and their weakness. They have no intention of attempting to return to a limited government. In fact, they are kicking conservatives to the curb.

All the GOP is doing, is licking their damned chops in hopes that it will be their turn to rule again. This is utter BS. Our government is working hand in hand to steal our money and our freedom. Only the faces change. Party affiliation seems to mean less and less with every election cycle.

That, Kram, earns you a coveted ATTA BOY! (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg10%2F4663%2Ftrophyel.jpg&hash=85deb32196f93c6124ef56d2bf8542e394524877)
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Darth Fife on December 05, 2012, 06:23:15 PM
Quote from: kramarat on December 05, 2012, 05:56:11 PM
It's not the government's job to dictate morality, one way or the other.
The supreme court ruled on abortion. The case is closed. The people that engage in abortion can take the conversation up with their maker.

I beg to differ with you! The Supreme Court did not rule on abortion, it ruled on a mythical "Right to Privacy" which is found nowhere in the Constitution.

...a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion...

Most people who practice law, even left leaning types, will tell you that Roe v Wade is "bad" law based on the flimsiest of premises.

Most of the problems facing the U.S. today can be traced (IMHO) to the 14th Amendment.

Just sayin'...
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 06:30:34 PM
Quote from: kramarat on December 05, 2012, 05:56:11 PM
It's not the government's job to dictate morality, one way or the other.
The supreme court ruled on abortion. The case is closed.
The people that engage in abortion can take the conversation up with their maker.

The duties of the government are spelled out in the constitution. It is intended to be a limited government..............not one that rules according to religious morals. Nor is it one that is allowed to make the determination on whether gays should be able to get married. If anything, it's a state issue.


ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Murder is a moral issue.  So is stealing.  There are many others.  In fact, ALL law is a reflection and imposition of SOMEBODY'S morality. You're also wrong that because a Supreme Court renders a decision, it's final. It is not.  Supreme Courts make mistakes. They made one in 1973. EVERYBODY knows it was wrong. It can be overturned.  Do a little homework and discover why for yourself--has to do with state's rights. 

As far as the Gay issue that seems so important to you, MARRIAGE HAS A DEFINITION.  What the queers and their supporters are demanding is that the federal government impose their definition on us by CHANGING that definition.  Again, you support THAT imposition of homosexual "morality."

Like it or not, I still have the right to vote according to my concept of morality.  You do too.  I can see you will work to put people in office who will impose YOUR morality on the rest of us--the right to kill your child, and to change the definition of marriage.  Those are principles I will oppose just as every generation has until this century (2000 to 2012)
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: redlom xof on December 05, 2012, 08:37:47 PM
Yawn you're the definition of neo-conservatism.

You claim to hate government, but want it to change anything you don't like in the country. Including what other people do with their bodies and with each other.

Let me guess, you think people who smoke pot should be in prison ?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: taxed on December 05, 2012, 08:55:43 PM
Quote from: redlom xof on December 05, 2012, 08:37:47 PM
Yawn you're the definition of neo-conservatism.

You claim to hate government, but want it to change anything you don't like in the country. Including what other people do with their bodies and with each other.

Let me guess, you think people who smoke pot should be in prison ?

Please show where he said that, or retract it.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: redlom xof on December 05, 2012, 09:10:16 PM
Really taxed ?

This whole forum is based around the belief that government is the problem.

At least libertarians are consistent with their beliefs.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: taxed on December 05, 2012, 09:12:28 PM
Quote from: redlom xof on December 05, 2012, 09:10:16 PM
Really taxed ?

This whole forum is based around the belief that government is the problem.

At least libertarians are consistent with their beliefs.

You said he hates government.  Limiting government is not hating it.  You are misrepresenting him.  Please correct it.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Darth Fife on December 05, 2012, 09:16:14 PM
I hate the government!

But then, I'm in good company...

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." -

-- Thomas Paine


:rolleyes:
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 09:23:13 PM
Quote from: redlom xof on December 05, 2012, 08:37:47 PM
Let me guess, you think people who smoke pot should be in prison ?

I think it should remain illegal.

The thing that bothers me about this issue (other than a few of you guys who obsess over your "right" to be stoned, I NEVER think about the issue) is that with all of the serious issues facing us, the liberals and the anarchist libertarians spend their days debating about their "right" to go through life stoned.  That tells me we're in deep trouble.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 09:26:39 PM
Quote from: taxed on December 05, 2012, 09:12:28 PM
You said he hates government.  Limiting government is not hating it.  You are misrepresenting him.  Please correct it.

I love the government the Founders gave us.  I HATE the government and the morality the Democrat Party is IMPOSING on us -- always moving to the left toward Communism.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: redlom xof on December 05, 2012, 09:34:45 PM
QuoteYou said he hates government.  Limiting government is not hating it.  You are misrepresenting him.  Please correct it.

ROFL. Out of all the bullshit that goes through this forum, you chose to attack semantics.

" Yawn believes government is the problem for the majority of this countries problems, but he also wants to use government to shape the country he wants." Is that okay ?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 09:39:21 PM
Quote from: redlom xof on December 05, 2012, 09:34:45 PM
" Yawn believes government is the problem for the majority of this countries problems, but he also wants to use government to shape the country he wants." Is that okay ?

You do too. You just don't see it because it is YOUR morality that you want imposed on the rest of us.

You keep forgetting that it is YOU that wants us to head in a direction that this country has never been, NOT me.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 03:24:33 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 06:30:34 PM
ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Murder is a moral issue.  So is stealing.  There are many others.  In fact, ALL law is a reflection and imposition of SOMEBODY'S morality. You're also wrong that because a Supreme Court renders a decision, it's final. It is not.  Supreme Courts make mistakes. They made one in 1973. EVERYBODY knows it was wrong. It can be overturned.  Do a little homework and discover why for yourself--has to do with state's rights. 

As far as the Gay issue that seems so important to you, MARRIAGE HAS A DEFINITION.  What the queers and their supporters are demanding is that the federal government impose their definition on us by CHANGING that definition.  Again, you support THAT imposition of homosexual "morality."

Like it or not, I still have the right to vote according to my concept of morality.  You do too.  I can see you will work to put people in office who will impose YOUR morality on the rest of us--the right to kill your child, and to change the definition of marriage.  Those are principles I will oppose just as every generation has until this century (2000 to 2012)

You sure have a gift for putting words in my mouth. :glare:

I hate abortion, and I am completely against redefining the word marriage.

There is a big problem with demanding that the federal government operate beyond the duties that are outlined in the constitution, and implement law based on your personal moral code. Like it or not, millions of people don't consider abortion to be murder. It's just a fact.

It's also a two way street.
There are people that think that cutting down trees is murder. There are people that think that we are murdering the planet with CO2. As a result, we now have an EPA that is choking the life out of US business and manufacturing.

A very strong case could be made, that our war on terrorism has gone way beyond national defense, and amounts to nothing more than murder. Water boarding has been deemed to be morally wrong, as well as all enhanced interrogation. Therefore, we have willingly abandoned the gathering of the intel that led us to Bin Laden.

By catering to our moral and emotional demands, the government has become a giant vine that threatens to choke the life out of our entire country. They are spending money that my 5 year old daughter hasn't even earned yet. We are at a fiscal cliff, and the bulk of baby boomers are just now beginning to retire. There won't be enough people paying taxes in 20 years to even run a basic government.

If we don't prioritize our demands, and insist on limiting the size, scope, and expense of government as goal #1, none of the other stuff will matter. Our country will be bankrupt and finished. Unlike Greece, no one will be around to bail us out.

Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 04:45:16 AM
As long as we continue to think that it is Washington's job to stop other people from doing things we don't like, whether it is abortion, smoking pot, cutting down trees, saying a prayer in school, owning guns, drilling for oil, eating unhealthy food....................................ad nauseum.

We will get exactly what we deserve. A massive government that is directly involved in every aspect of our lives. Freedom will become a distant memory.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Shooterman on December 06, 2012, 05:48:22 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 09:26:39 PM
I love the government the Founders gave us.  I HATE the government and the morality the Democrat Party is IMPOSING on us -- always moving to the left toward Communism.

After 70 years, the government the Founders gave us, ceased to exist.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Darth Fife on December 06, 2012, 06:49:33 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on December 06, 2012, 05:48:22 AM
After 70 years, the government the Founders gave us, ceased to exist.

True dat!
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 07:45:37 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 04:45:16 AM
As long as we continue to think that it is Washington's job to stop other people from doing things we don't like, whether it is abortion, smoking pot, cutting down trees, saying a prayer in school, owning guns, drilling for oil, eating unhealthy food....................................ad nauseum.

We will get exactly what we deserve. A massive government that is directly involved in every aspect of our lives. Freedom will become a distant memory.

Bingo.

Either we support individual liberty and private property or we support collective decision making and the some form of social engineering.

Just because someone may not like pot smokers does not give them the right to support jailing them, no more than I have the moral right to support the use of violence to compel others to act according to my preferences.

Statists are all too willing to use the state to enforce their view of the world on other individuals, whether it about drug use, immigration, religious issues or whatever.

How about letting people making up their own minds? How about respecting private property?

And if every election is about imposing one belief system or another- when does the hard work of actually limiting government ever get done?

A government big enough to micromanage your life is big enough to print money, start needless wars, and make a mockery of the rule of law.

It is time we learn that true freedom means only having control of your own actions.

This means that others will no doubt act in ways that we find objectionable.

As long as there is no property rights infringement involved in these acts- we as outside observers have no say in the matter.

That is true freedom.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Darth Fife on December 06, 2012, 07:50:19 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 04:45:16 AM
As long as we continue to think that it is Washington's job to stop other people from doing things we don't like, whether it is abortion, smoking pot, cutting down trees, saying a prayer in school, owning guns, drilling for oil, eating unhealthy food....................................ad nauseum.

We will get exactly what we deserve. A massive government that is directly involved in every aspect of our lives. Freedom will become a distant memory.

Which why I think we need to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Especially section !

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is what usurps the state's sovereignty.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 07:53:31 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 05, 2012, 09:23:13 PM
I think it should remain illegal.

The thing that bothers me about this issue (other than a few of you guys who obsess over your "right" to be stoned, I NEVER think about the issue) is that with all of the serious issues facing us, the liberals and the anarchist libertarians spend their days debating about their "right" to go through life stoned.  That tells me we're in deep trouble.
You never think about it but none the less excuse the use of violence on people who have harmed no one?

I have to wonder how you can justify putting people in jail (which is an act of aggression) who have themselves violated the rights of no one?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 08:13:51 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 07:53:31 AM
You never think about it but none the less excuse the use of violence on people who have harmed no one?

I have to wonder how you can justify putting people in jail (which is an act of aggression) who have themselves violated the rights of no one?

You're putting words in my mouth.  Why not deal with what I SAY instead of extrapolating my position based on your own bias of Conservatism.

Can you tell me exactly what you want??

We're talking about the federal government right?  What your STATE does is between you and your state.

Are you advocating a Roe v Wade type decision from the Supreme Court with the ridiculous claim that will take this from the states and the people of the state?


I am NOT going to continue this drug legalization debate with the potheads here.  It's NOT my issue.  I've told you my VIEW and why, but THIS is not my issue and Im not going to keep debating it.  Do what you want.  I'll vote the way I choose. 

THESE are the make or break issues for me

Abortion
ILLEGAL "Immigration"
Changing the definition of Marriage


Try to stay focused.  And no, the authorities are NOT "committing violence" against you if you go to jail for breaking the law. You're just silly.

And yes, MIND ALTERING DRUGS DO affect others and society.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 08:21:01 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 08:13:51 AM
You're putting words in my mouth.  Why not deal with what I SAY instead of extrapolating my position based on your own bias of Conservatism.

Can you tell me exactly what you want??

We're talking about the federal government right?  What your STATE does is between you and your state.

Are you advocating a Roe v Wade type decision from the Supreme Court with the ridiculous claim that will take this from the states and the people of the state?


I am NOT going to continue this drug legalization debate with the potheads here.  It's NOT my issue.  I've told you my VIEW and why, but THIS is not my issue and Im not going to keep debating it.  Do what you want.  I'll vote the way I choose. 

THESE are the make or break issues for me

Abortion
ILLEGAL "Immigration"
Changing the definition of Marriage


Try to stay focused.  And no, the authorities are NOT "committing violence" against you if you go to jail for breaking the law. You're just silly.

And yes, MIND ALTERING DRUGS DO affect others and society.

I am just trying to nail done your justification for putting people into cages who themselves have not hurt anyone else, but simply engage in a behavior you find unpleasant.

If we cant agree on basic principles such as inalienable natural rights, I see little reason to discuss fluff issues like gay marriage or abortion.

And it is a use of violence to jail someone. The question is under what situations is this justified?

If you dont see the force and violence inherent in cuffing someone and putting them in a cage then we simply don't live in the same reality.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 08:24:52 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 08:13:51 AM
You're putting words in my mouth.  Why not deal with what I SAY instead of extrapolating my position based on your own bias of Conservatism.

Can you tell me exactly what you want??

We're talking about the federal government right?  What your STATE does is between you and your state.

Are you advocating a Roe v Wade type decision from the Supreme Court with the ridiculous claim that will take this from the states and the people of the state?


I am NOT going to continue this drug legalization debate with the potheads here.  It's NOT my issue.  I've told you my VIEW and why, but THIS is not my issue and Im not going to keep debating it.  Do what you want.  I'll vote the way I choose. 

THESE are the make or break issues for me

Abortion
ILLEGAL "Immigration"
Changing the definition of Marriage


Try to stay focused.  And no, the authorities are NOT "committing violence" against you if you go to jail for breaking the law. You're just silly.

And yes, MIND ALTERING DRUGS DO affect others and society.

The $20+ trillion in debt that Obama is going to leave us in, doesn't even make the top three? :confused:

Yikes!
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 08:31:56 AM
Did I say HOW someone should be punished for "possession"?  Distribution?  Can you provide a link where I said HOW someone should be punished.

Why the obsession with this when the country is about to collapse????  DO WHAT YOU WANT. You're useless to your brethren anyway (your obsession tells me so).


Do you want a Roe v Wade decision from the Supreme Court to take this from the states?

If I speed 50 over and kill no one are the police committing violence against me if  I have to pay a fine? If they put me in jail?

Do you want a Roe  v Wade decision to take away your employer's right to fire you for violating his drug policy?

Again, DO WHAT YOU WANT. smoke yourself silly. I really don't give a damn.  There are reasons it should remain ILLEGAL though. I won't wast my time on this
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 08:34:19 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 08:24:52 AM
The $20+ trillion in debt that Obama is going to leave us in, doesn't even make the top three? :confused:

Yikes!
And how about the future of the dollar?

The new normal of anemic economic growth?

How about the various controls and policies that limit job creation and competition, such as licenses, patents, copyrights, tariffs, quotas, subsidies, price controls.. etc?

Nah.

Abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration are the real challenges facing people in their everyday lives. That is where focus needs to be.

/sarcasm
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 08:37:15 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 08:31:56 AM
Did I say HOW someone should be punished for "possession"?  Distribution?  Can you provide a link where I said HOW someone should be punished.

Why the obsession with this when the country is about to collapse????  DO WHAT YOU WANT. You're useless to your brethren anyway (your obsession tells me so).

Because it gets right to heart of the problems with this country and this government- the lack of respect for property and individual liberty.

Quote

Do you want a Roe v Wade decision from the Supreme Court to take this from the states?

Say what?

Quote

If I speed 50 over and kill no one are the police committing violence against me if  I have to pay a fine? If they put me in jail?

Yes.

All instances of force are violent, by their very definition.

This is why political philosophy describes government as a monopoly on legal violence.
Quote
Do you want a Roe  v Wade decision to take away your employer's right to fire you for violating his drug policy?

No.

I believe in free association.

Quote
Again, DO WHAT YOU WANT. smoke yourself silly. I really don't give a damn.  There are reasons it should remain ILLEGAL though. I won't wast my time on this

I am still waiting on the moral justification for putting another human 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?

Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 08:41:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 08:41:42 AM
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
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 08:47:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 08:52:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 09:03:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Shooterman on December 06, 2012, 09:27:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:33:22 AM
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.

Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 09:34:25 AM
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!
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 09:35:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:38:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 09:43:23 AM
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?

Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:43:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 09:44:30 AM
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!
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 09:47:16 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:43:37 AM
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.

First off, this has nothing to do with me. I am not a drug user.

That you want to make this argument about me shows that you are seeking to incite anger. You want to make this personal.

Well good luck with that. This is not my first political forum. I have debated bullies before.

Secondly, you support using force to punish drug users in some form, whether it be fines or flogging. That is violent.

So how do you justify supporting the use of violence on humans who themselves have not become violent?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:47:55 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 09:43:23 AM
So you support punishing people for drug possession/use/ distribution?

How do you justify it?

Apologize for misrepresenting my position.
  Then take it up with YOUR state.  I have no influence there.

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

Already answered that.  You can't read


Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 09:52:15 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:47:55 AM

Apologize for misrepresenting my position.
  Then take it up with YOUR state.  I have no influence there.

Already answered that.  You can't read

You very clearly support the government using force to coerce drug users and those possessing and or distributing them.

Now we are just waiting on a moral justification for this opinion.

Do you know what it means to justify something? You have to argue why the act is just.

There needs to be an argument made by you defending the ethics of using force on humans.

So far you have not even attempted such an argument.

I will help you.

It is easy to justify using force on those who themselves use force on others.

Caging a murderer is just because the murderer gave up his right to be free when he took the life of another.

Rapists and thieves can be jailed, fined or punished under similar reasoning.

Now- what is the moral justification for using force on a human who has not used violence on another?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:59:56 AM
You DON'T live in a vacuum. You convinced yourself that it is a "victimless crime." It is not.  You've convinced yourself that the only thing wrong with drugs is that you don't have easy access.  You are wrong.

I support a state's RIGHT to determine it's CRIMES and their PUNISHMENT

You want legalization.

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 (http://www.drugwatch.org/Against%20Legalization%20of%20Drugs.html)


Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 10:02:55 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:59:56 AM
You DON'T live in a vacuum. You convinced yourself that it is a "victimless crime." It is not.  You've convinced yourself that the only thing wrong with drugs is that you don't have easy access.  You are wrong.

I support a state's RIGHT to determine it's CRIMES and their PUNISHMENT

You want legalization.

I never argued that I did live in a vacuum.

I have not convinced myself that it is a victimless crime- it is.

Drug exchanges are free exchanges. You can't victimize yourself.

And there a lot of things wrong with drugs, and most of them flow out of the fact that they are produced and sold on a black market. Just as prohibition gave us bath tub gin and the deaths associated with it, the drug war has given us crack and meth, and those who support this war share in the responsibility for the death and destruction that flows from the black market.

And I am still waiting on your moral argument.

I am beginning to think you have never considered the moral dimension of the law and dont have an answer...
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 10:11:42 AM
You have them. You just reject them. I can't help you with that, and I know I can't convince you.  I'm done trying. 

This isn't the issue I ever mentioned regarding Rand Paul.

My opposition was based on his stated stance on
Abortion
ILLEGALS

You only debate this one issue--but then RP supporters always do. That and crucifying Israel.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 10:15:29 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 10:11:42 AM
You have them. You just reject them. I can't help you with that, and I know I can't convince you.  I'm done trying. 

This isn't the issue I ever mentioned regarding Rand Paul.

My opposition was based on his stated stance on
Abortion
ILLEGALS

You only debate this one issue--but then RP supporters always do. That and crucifying Israel.

I really dont know what the first 3 sentences of this post refer to.

I have only debated this one issue with you.

I am more than capable of discussing a wide variety of issues.

My views on immigration are well known.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 10:22:23 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 10:15:29 AM
I really dont know what the first 3 sentences of this post refer to.

I have only debated this one issue with you.

I know. Kinda makes my point.  So does the fact that you can't follow a thread.

bye
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 10:28:22 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 10:22:23 AM
I know. Kinda makes my point.  So does the fact that you can't follow a thread.

bye

This coming from the poster who has been unable to form a moral argument justifying their opinions, even after many pages of questioning.

Ultimately it seems that you dont question the morality of law at all.

While running from forming an argument you have proven most adept at taking a discussion into the realm of the personal- eager to insinuate that I was a drug user, as if everyone who is against the drug war must be a drug user.

This is same reasoning that posits that only slaves could be abolitionists, or that only gay people can support gay marriage.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Shooterman on December 06, 2012, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:33:22 AM
You're offended because I tell you the truth.
In what way?  You've really said nothing.

If a little introspection doesn't show you how idiotic you are being in attacking those that differ from you on what being caged means, or those that do whatever they will as long as it hurts no one else, then all the talking and debating, ( which seems beyond your ability ) would lead one to believe at heart you are no better than the Inquisitors that took great delight in torturing people. You wish to cage a man and/or flog him for taking a stand on Pot that is different than yours because YOU think it to be immoral because it is illegal due to past racist thinking. 
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 10:59:44 AM
Quote from: Shooterman on December 06, 2012, 10:47:35 AM
If a little introspection doesn't show you how idiotic you are being in attacking those that differ from you on what being caged means, or those that do whatever they will as long as it hurts no one else, then all the talking and debating, ( which seems beyond your ability ) would lead one to believe at heart you are no better than the Inquisitors that took great delight in torturing people. You wish to cage a man and/or flog him for taking a stand on Pot that is different than yours because YOU think it to be immoral because it is illegal due to past racist thinking.

Well said, Shooter.

Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 11:16:34 AM
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.

Flogging? :confused:

Somehow this all sounds familiar....................

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/iranian-pair-death-penalty-alcohol (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/iranian-pair-death-penalty-alcohol)
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 11:26:01 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 11:16:34 AM
Flogging? :confused:

Somehow this all sounds familiar....................

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/iranian-pair-death-penalty-alcohol (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/iranian-pair-death-penalty-alcohol)

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?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: hfishjr81 on December 06, 2012, 11:32:29 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 11:26:01 AM
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?




Why does it have to be a "man" doing the forcing and "flogging"?  Sexist!!!  :ttoung:
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
Quote from: hfishjr81 on December 06, 2012, 11:32:29 AM


Why does it have to be a "man" doing the forcing and "flogging"?  Sexist!!!  :ttoung:

Men do most of the legal violence in this society.

But it certainly can be a woman.

Perhaps we have accidentally hit on something here...
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 12:04:28 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 12:19:24 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 12:23:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 12:23:48 PM
And there he is again.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 12:24:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 12:29:50 PM
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
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: 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 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 (http://www.drugwatch.org/Against%20Legalization%20of%20Drugs.html)[/size]
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 12:39:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 12:56:37 PM
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?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 12:59:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 01:30:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Bluedog on December 06, 2012, 02:26:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: 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
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 03:26:30 PM
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:
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: BILLY Defiant on December 06, 2012, 03:30:51 PM
Quote from: Bluedog on December 06, 2012, 02:26:26 PM
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.


Bingo....like I said, the issues are irrelevant what the idiots in our soceity vote for is somebody they like, this last election proves that beyond a doubt.

Billy
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Solar on December 06, 2012, 05:43:54 PM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 12:56:37 PM
It would be a pleasure.

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.
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.
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.

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."

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

It all depends on your risk preferences.
It also accounts for the incredible profits earned by those who ignore the law.
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?

Just curious TL, using your rationale of legalizing alcohol, the same could be said about meth, cocaine, bathsalts LSD, etc considering they too can become poisonous depending on the idiot making them.
So how do you justify this position?
Really just curious, because you claim the Govt leaves cigarettes, fastfood, difference being, those are not mind altering.

So why not legalize the harder drugs?
I'm not advocating in anyway...
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 04:15:52 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 06, 2012, 05:43:54 PM
Just curious TL, using your rationale of legalizing alcohol, the same could be said about meth, cocaine, bathsalts LSD, etc considering they too can become poisonous depending on the idiot making them.
So how do you justify this position?
Really just curious, because you claim the Govt leaves cigarettes, fastfood, difference being, those are not mind altering.

So why not legalize the harder drugs?
I'm not advocating in anyway...

Just butting in here.

I think the libertarianism that TL espouses, probably would have worked out fine if it was practiced from the outset, and it falls in line with what the founders envisioned, I believe.

The problem is, that it wasn't. The government, particularly through the 20th century, pushed itself further and further into the business of the people, As a result, we have tens of millions of people that have no education, no skills, and are completely unable to feed, clothe and house themselves. They are dependent on government, not just for the little bit of money they get, but for everything about their lives.

It's a shame too. These people have no handicaps, and yet the government has managed to strip them of all self respect, dignity, drive to do better.......................Freedom. Many of these people have no idea what freedom is. It has been redefined as a right to more handouts, free birth control and abortions. That's the entire list!

Much like North Korea couldn't do an overnight shift to a system based on freedom, without the population crumbling under the weight of it due to it's unfamiliarity, the US has also reached a point, that a sudden shift to our founding principles, (that we never should have deviated from), would leave millions of of people not knowing what to do.

As we saw in the aftermath of Katrina, and due to government social experimentation and tampering, people have even lost the basic human survival instinct. They sit and wait.

If we started on reversing this today, it would take a generation to undo it. Ain't gonna happen though. Obama has even struck down Clinton's successful welfare to work program, and is working diligently to create millions more of these people.

Had we stuck to the Ron Paul style of libertarianism from the beginning, we would have a self reliant, educated, common sense citizenry, and drug laws would not be necessary. But that's not the way it happened. A sudden change back to the way it always should have been, would be a disaster.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 05:06:45 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 04:15:52 AM
I think the libertarianism that TL espouses, probably would have worked out fine if it was practiced from the outset, and it falls in line with what the founders envisioned, I believe.

I'll admit I know next to NOTHING about his precious drug laws, but does the federal government have anything to do with him smoking this important product (sarcasm) in his mom's basement?

Aren't we confusing things a little?  Isn't it his STATE and the local authorities that'll come and "commit violence" (sarcasm) against him by putting him in a "cage"   :lol: aka TAKE AWAY HIS FREEDOM??????  (yes, it is a JUST punishment).

And does ANYONE really get jail time for minor USE anymore??  I didn't think that happens anyway. Does it?  If so, it would be good news for someone I know who needs to get rid of her nightmare roommate. I told her this is her way out since it is still ILLEGAL in Michigan without a prescription.  I did tell her to go and talk to the police and use this (she smokes that stuff in her apartment and my girlfriend has medical problems that makes this stuff VERY bad).
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: JustKari on December 07, 2012, 05:20:54 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 05:06:45 AM
I'll admit I know next to NOTHING about his precious drug laws, but does the federal government have anything to do with him smoking this important product (sarcasm) in his mom's basement?

Aren't we confusing things a little?  Isn't it his STATE and the local authorities that'll come and "commit violence" (sarcasm) against him by putting him in a "cage"   :lol: aka TAKE AWAY HIS FREEDOM??????  (yes, it is a JUST punishment).

And does ANYONE really get jail time for minor USE anymore??  I didn't think that happens anyway. Does it?  If so, it would be good news for someone I know who needs to get rid of her nightmare roommate. I told her this is her way out since it is still ILLEGAL in Michigan without a prescription.  I did tell her to go and talk to the police and use this (she smokes that stuff in her apartment and my girlfriend has medical problems that makes this stuff VERY bad).

She may want to move out first.  Whether you are arrested or not is dependent on the amour you have in your possession at the time of discovery.  Use/possession is a misdemeanor, possession with the intent to sell (measured in oz.), is a felony.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 05:31:17 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 05:06:45 AM
I'll admit I know next to NOTHING about his precious drug laws, but does the federal government have anything to do with him smoking this important product (sarcasm) in his mom's basement?

Aren't we confusing things a little?  Isn't it his STATE and the local authorities that'll come and "commit violence" (sarcasm) against him by putting him in a "cage"   :lol: aka TAKE AWAY HIS FREEDOM??????  (yes, it is a JUST punishment).

And does ANYONE really get jail time for minor USE anymore??  I didn't think that happens anyway. Does it?  If so, it would be good news for someone I know who needs to get rid of her nightmare roommate. I told her this is her way out since it is still ILLEGAL in Michigan without a prescription.  I did tell her to go and talk to the police and use this (she smokes that stuff in her apartment and my girlfriend has medical problems that makes this stuff VERY bad).

And does ANYONE really get jail time for minor USE anymore??

I don't know, but I don't think so. I think most states basically ignore use or possession of small amounts of weed. Maybe a small fine. Which sort of makes TL's point.

I don't see any major ramifications coming to the states that recently legalized pot. The people that smoked it before, will continue to smoke it. I would imagine that there are provisions against use by, or providing it to minors, as well as laws against driving under the influence.

I also don't think that anyone that is hanging out and getting stoned all day would have any interest at all in being on this site and debating the issue. :rolleyes:

When I turn on the local news and see the horrible things that people are doing to others, and knowing that jails are already overcrowded, I don't have a problem with the legalization of weed. That doesn't mean that I just want to get high. It means that there are some really bad people out there, and dwindling jail space should be used for them. Not people that actually do just want to sit home and smoke pot.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 05:59:18 AM
QuoteI don't know, but I don't think so. I think most states basically ignore use or possession of small amounts of weed. Maybe a small fine. Which sort of makes TL's point.

Actually, it makes MY point and renders his feigned "outrage" moot.  I know Ann Arbor ignores it as a minor user, still it is ILLEGAL and my GF has a growing problem with this roommate she took on and hasn't been able to remove her without going through a drawn out eviction process (she's not even on the lease and she cannot throw her out).

THIS is my only concern about this irrelevant issue. I'm hoping she can use the fact that this roommate smoking this ILLEGAL substance in HER apartment as leverage to throw her out.  With her medical condition (autoimmune disease caused by celiac disease) I would think she could use this to have this woman removed.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 06:06:29 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 05:59:18 AM
Actually, it makes MY point and renders his "outrage" moot.  I know Ann Arbor ignores it as a minor user, still it is ILLEGAL and my GF has a growing problem with this roommate she took on and hasn't been able to remove her without going through a drawn out eviction process (she's not even on the lease and she cannot throw her out).

THIS is my only concern about this irrelevant issue. I'm hoping she can use the fact that this roommate smoking this ILLEGAL substance in HER apartment as leverage to throw her out.  Wit her medical condition (autoimmune disease caused by celiac disease) I would think she could use this to have this woman removed.

I think a health issue would be her only course of action. I doubt that turning the roommate in for smoking alone would get any response.

Also, if the apartment complex has a provision against smoking indoors, it might work, but it might also get your GF in trouble. Is subletting allowed?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 06:24:52 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 06:06:29 AM

Also, if the apartment complex has a provision against smoking indoors, it might work, but it might also get your GF in trouble. Is subletting allowed?

That's her problem. The complex knows about the roommate and that it was a trial for a couple months to make sure it worked out, so they're sort of okay with it,  but she had one before and it didn't work out either and she's afraid that complaints to the office will start turning them against her.  That's why I told her to just talk to the police and be honest about everything and use her medical condition and the fact that she's smoking the stuff in her apartment as her way out of this mess. I think they would be sympathetic. 
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Solar on December 07, 2012, 06:31:16 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 06:24:52 AM
That's her problem. The complex knows about the roommate and that it was a trial for a couple months to make sure it worked out, so they're sort of okay with it,  but she had one before and it didn't work out either and she's afraid that complaints to the office will start turning them against her.  That's why I told her to just talk to the police and be honest about everything and use her medical condition and the fact that she's smoking the stuff in her apartment as her way out of this mess. I think they would be sympathetic.
They'll ask for proof.
She needs a doctors recommendation that she avoid certain substances, then she would have some ammo.
Without proof of her claim, she just looks like an angry roommate.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 06:43:02 AM
I told her to stealthily snap a picture with her cell phone and know where she keeps the stuff and not to make a big deal about it except to ask her to stop smoking the stuff in the apartment since it violates her lease.

She's told me forever that she can't be around the stuff, but I'll tell her to call her doctor about it to get something in writing.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 06:45:26 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 06:24:52 AM
That's her problem. The complex knows about the roommate and that it was a trial for a couple months to make sure it worked out, so they're sort of okay with it,  but she had one before and it didn't work out either and she's afraid that complaints to the office will start turning them against her.  That's why I told her to just talk to the police and be honest about everything and use her medical condition and the fact that she's smoking the stuff in her apartment as her way out of this mess. I think they would be sympathetic.

Doubtful. If the police don't catch the girl in the act, it's hearsay, and there's nothing they can do.

Also. Your GF is the person on the lease, so if a marijuana bust did happen, she would be in hot water, because it's her apartment, which makes her legally responsible.

Not a good situation.

The best way you could help your GF, would be to hold very vocal prayer meetings over there every night until it drives the roommate nuts, and she leaves on her own. :lol:

Not a good situation.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 06:47:08 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 06, 2012, 05:43:54 PM
Just curious TL, using your rationale of legalizing alcohol, the same could be said about meth, cocaine, bathsalts LSD, etc considering they too can become poisonous depending on the idiot making them.
So how do you justify this position?
Really just curious, because you claim the Govt leaves cigarettes, fastfood, difference being, those are not mind altering.

So why not legalize the harder drugs?
I'm not advocating in anyway...

Good question, why not?

I know that when Bayer was selling heroin it was a much safer substance.

As an individualist and an anarchist I only support laws dealing with property rights violations. 
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 06:57:19 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 06:47:08 AM
Good question, why not?

I know that when Bayer was selling heroin it was a much safer substance.

As an individualist and an anarchist I only support laws dealing with property rights violations.

What a wonderful world that would be. :popcorn:

No speed limits, no traffic laws. No laws against any drugs or driving while on them. No laws against sex with minors of any age, as long as it was consensual.

You sure do have a lot of faith in human nature to always do the right thing. It's not something I share.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 06:57:25 AM
Quote from: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 05:06:45 AM
I'll admit I know next to NOTHING about his precious drug laws, but does the federal government have anything to do with him smoking this important product (sarcasm) in his mom's basement?

Aren't we confusing things a little?  Isn't it his STATE and the local authorities that'll come and "commit violence" (sarcasm) against him by putting him in a "cage"   :lol: aka TAKE AWAY HIS FREEDOM??????  (yes, it is a JUST punishment).

And does ANYONE really get jail time for minor USE anymore??  I didn't think that happens anyway. Does it?  If so, it would be good news for someone I know who needs to get rid of her nightmare roommate. I told her this is her way out since it is still ILLEGAL in Michigan without a prescription.  I did tell her to go and talk to the police and use this (she smokes that stuff in her apartment and my girlfriend has medical problems that makes this stuff VERY bad).

Here you go again acting like a child, insinuating that I am pot smoker and that I live in my mom's basement.

Well my friend, you are wrong on both counts, just as you are wrong about the fact that people are no longer jailed for "use" or "possession." They most certainly are. Maybe not in all states, but here in Texas it is different.

Let me remind you of something because you seem to be a little dense.

This has nothing to do with me, or punishing me. Stop making this about me.

Grow up.

And putting people in cages does take away their freedom. For one they aren't free to leave!

Perhaps you need to look into what is meant by the word "freedom."

And the part about your daughters roommate goes right to heart of your character or lack there of.

You are willing to see the state get involved in a personal matter when your daughter could simply move out or ask the other person to. No need to bring legalized violence into the picture. No need to start the ball rolling on a process that could land the other person in a cage.

If you had any sense of decency the idea of caging humans for drug possession or use would disgust you down to your core.

As it is you get a strange tingle up your leg, a la Chris Mathews, just thinking about putting me in a cage.

Well no offense, but I yawn at such arguments.

Perhaps that is where your handle came from?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 07:06:49 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 04:15:52 AM
Just butting in here.

I think the libertarianism that TL espouses, probably would have worked out fine if it was practiced from the outset, and it falls in line with what the founders envisioned, I believe.

The problem is, that it wasn't. The government, particularly through the 20th century, pushed itself further and further into the business of the people, As a result, we have tens of millions of people that have no education, no skills, and are completely unable to feed, clothe and house themselves. They are dependent on government, not just for the little bit of money they get, but for everything about their lives.

It's a shame too. These people have no handicaps, and yet the government has managed to strip them of all self respect, dignity, drive to do better.......................Freedom. Many of these people have no idea what freedom is. It has been redefined as a right to more handouts, free birth control and abortions. That's the entire list!

Much like North Korea couldn't do an overnight shift to a system based on freedom, without the population crumbling under the weight of it due to it's unfamiliarity, the US has also reached a point, that a sudden shift to our founding principles, (that we never should have deviated from), would leave millions of of people not knowing what to do.

As we saw in the aftermath of Katrina, and due to government social experimentation and tampering, people have even lost the basic human survival instinct. They sit and wait.

If we started on reversing this today, it would take a generation to undo it. Ain't gonna happen though. Obama has even struck down Clinton's successful welfare to work program, and is working diligently to create millions more of these people.

Had we stuck to the Ron Paul style of libertarianism from the beginning, we would have a self reliant, educated, common sense citizenry, and drug laws would not be necessary. But that's not the way it happened. A sudden change back to the way it always should have been, would be a disaster.

I have to disagree with the conclusion you have come to here.

People respond to incentives. And we are highly adaptable.

So yes under the incentives facing them it is rational to be a taker, rather than a self sufficient maker.

And many people live that way. But they have the choice to.

In a libertarian society the option would not exist. But hunger and needs of shelter and clothing do.

So the incentives change and productive acts become "worth it." They become worth it because working and producing is better than starving- no matter how accustomed to being taken care of one may be.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 07:14:31 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 06:57:19 AM
What a wonderful world that would be. :popcorn:

No speed limits, no traffic laws.
If roads are privately owned then you agree to abide by the speed limits, etc that come with using that road. In that sense, law exists, but it is still tied to property rights.

The owner of the road requires those who use it to respect his stipulations and failure to do so would be a property rights violation of the owner.

Quote

No laws against any drugs or driving while on them. No laws against sex with minors of any age, as long as it was consensual.

Driving intoxicated and hitting some would be a property rights violation, and hence something that is in the bounds of a law limited to property rights enforcement.

The sex with minors thing is tricky. Parents have the right to control the associations their children are involved in, but a child on their own, who takes care of themselves would be free to make their own decisions about sex.
Quote

You sure do have a lot of faith in human nature to always do the right thing. It's not something I share.

No, it is the opposite.

I recognize that humans are flawed and therefore do not trust them to rule over others. Therefore I am an anarchist.

And since humans are so flawed the law cannot be subject to their whim. It needs a clear and objective purpose to escape being the arbitrary whim of some politician. And that is protection of property rights.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 07:33:48 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 07:06:49 AM
I have to disagree with the conclusion you have come to here.

People respond to incentives. And we are highly adaptable.

So yes under the incentives facing them it is rational to be a taker, rather than a self sufficient maker.

And many people live that way. But they have the choice to.

In a libertarian society the option would not exist. But hunger and needs of shelter and clothing do.

So the incentives change and productive acts become "worth it." They become worth it because working and producing is better than starving- no matter how accustomed to being taken care of one may be.

That's a very naive position.

I don't like what the government has done any more than you do. But.............according to your philosophy, there would be nothing wrong with taking a third generation zoo animal and just turning it loose in the habitat that it's species had originally come from. Instinct would take over, and the animal would just "know" what needed to be done to survive.

We both know that wouldn't happen, and I think the same can be said for the human species. Millions have never experienced self reliance, in any way, shape or form. To suddenly remove them from the government teat, would create widespread chaos. But maybe that's what you want.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 07:40:47 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 07:14:31 AM
If roads are privately owned then you agree to abide by the speed limits, etc that come with using that road. In that sense, law exists, but it is still tied to property rights.

The owner of the road requires those who use it to respect his stipulations and failure to do so would be a property rights violation of the owner.

Driving intoxicated and hitting some would be a property rights violation, and hence something that is in the bounds of a law limited to property rights enforcement.

The sex with minors thing is tricky. Parents have the right to control the associations their children are involved in, but a child on their own, who takes care of themselves would be free to make their own decisions about sex.
No, it is the opposite.

I recognize that humans are flawed and therefore do not trust them to rule over others. Therefore I am an anarchist.

And since humans are so flawed the law cannot be subject to their whim. It needs a clear and objective purpose to escape being the arbitrary whim of some politician. And that is protection of property rights.

QuoteI recognize that humans are flawed and therefore do not trust them to rule over others. Therefore I am an anarchist.

The founders of the country also recognized that humans are flawed, and the government was never intended to rule over anyone.

They also understood that laws were a necessary evil. And they went beyond simple property rights.

So you have a basic disagreement with the founding of the country?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 07:41:57 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 07:33:48 AM
That's a very naive position.

I don't like what the government has done any more than you do. But.............according to your philosophy, there would be nothing wrong with taking a third generation zoo animal and just turning it loose in the habitat that it's species had originally come from. Instinct would take over, and the animal would just "know" what needed to be done to survive.

We both know that wouldn't happen, and I think the same can be said for the human species. Millions have never experienced self reliance, in any way, shape or form. To suddenly remove them from the government teat, would create widespread chaos. But maybe that's what you want.

You're the one being naive here!

Do you really think human action is so static? You forget how adaptable humans are. We survive in concentration camps, war zones, in prisons, alone in the woods, alone on a boat in the ocean...

Humans survive. It is what we do.

A zoo animal is not a human- it does not reason.

Let's not down play the role of incentives in shaping behavior.

Do you really think a welfare queen is going to sit on her duff and starve to death because the government checks stopped?

Lets not be so naive as to downplay the incredible power of want and need.

Many of us live like parasites because we can. Take away that choice and people will find a way to meet their needs through production and exchange. Otherwise they will starve and die.

And the incentive to stay alive is much stronger than the incentive to be lazy.



Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 07:43:30 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 07:40:47 AM
The founders of the country also recognized that humans are flawed, and the government was never intended to rule over anyone.

They also understood that laws were a necessary evil. And they went beyond simple property rights.

So you have a basic disagreement with the founding of the country?

Well then they were naive in the extreme for no government can exist that does not rule over people.

Laws are necessary, but they are not evil, and no they do not go beyond property rights.

Property rights are what the law is designed to protect.

I most certainly have a basic disagreement with the founding of the country. I am an anarchist!
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 08:04:41 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 07:41:57 AM
You're the one being naive here!

Do you really think human action is so static? You forget how adaptable humans are. We survive in concentration camps, war zones, in prisons, alone in the woods, alone on a boat in the ocean...

Humans survive. It is what we do.

A zoo animal is not a human- it does not reason.

Let's not down play the role of incentives in shaping behavior.

Do you really think a welfare queen is going to sit on her duff and starve to death because the government checks stopped?

Lets not be so naive as to downplay the incredible power of want and need.

Many of us live like parasites because we can. Take away that choice and people will find a way to meet their needs through production and exchange. Otherwise they will starve and die.

And the incentive to stay alive is much stronger than the incentive to be lazy.

People die while lost at sea or out in the wilderness all the time. Maybe you are smoking pot. They don't just adapt to the new surroundings and thrive. :blink:

Surviving in prison? Well...........yeah. For many, prison is not much different than the lives they were living. Of course they survive.

Your position is not defendable. I really wish you were right though. It would make things a hell of a lot easier.

http://urbantimes.co/2010/08/hurricane-katrina-pain-index-2010-orleans-years/hurricane-katrina-victims-2/ (http://urbantimes.co/2010/08/hurricane-katrina-pain-index-2010-orleans-years/hurricane-katrina-victims-2/)
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 08:18:05 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 08:04:41 AM
People die while lost at sea or out in the wilderness all the time.

Sure they do.

And many survive.

Are you denying the human drive to survive? Are you denying the human ability to adapt?

If so then how did we get here?

Quote

Maybe you are smoking pot.

Bravo. Take the yawn cowardly way out and go personal!

Quote

They don't just adapt to the new surroundings and thrive. :blink:

You really suggest that humans living today are so used to receiving handouts that even the risk of starvation is not enough to get them off their butts and producing?

Good luck defending that!
Quote



Surviving in prison? Well...........yeah. For many, prison is not much different than the lives they were living. Of course they survive.

And they adapt to the changing incentives facing them.

Tell me- what do you know about human action and incentive structures?
Quote

Your position is not defendable.

Oh no?

I have done a good job thus far. What I have not seen is you defend yours.

I am supposed to take it on your authority that humans are so changed from what they were that they are incapable of taking care of themselves.

Nonsense on stilts.

That is just an argument for preserving the status quo.

Quote

I really wish you were right though. It would make things a hell of a lot easier.

http://urbantimes.co/2010/08/hurricane-katrina-pain-index-2010-orleans-years/hurricane-katrina-victims-2/ (http://urbantimes.co/2010/08/hurricane-katrina-pain-index-2010-orleans-years/hurricane-katrina-victims-2/)

Much of the victimization going on during Katrina was done by the police themselves.

Which goes to the heart of what I am saying about the state.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Solar on December 07, 2012, 08:18:30 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 06:47:08 AM
Good question, why not?

I know that when Bayer was selling heroin it was a much safer substance.

As an individualist and an anarchist I only support laws dealing with property rights violations.
Why not? That is your answer?
You conveniently avoided mind altering drugs like lSD and Bathsalts.
If were going to go down that road, shouldn't we legalize all drugs?

You neglect history, society deemed drugs to be harmful and wanted laws controlling them, that meant all drugs.
Truth is, drugs are a scourge on a peaceful, productive society and society has the right to decide what it deems good, regardless of what you claim as a loss of freedom.

Shouldn't I be allowed to walk naked with 100 dogs on a leash down main street? After all, I'm not harming anyone?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 08:28:23 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 07, 2012, 08:18:30 AM
Why not? That is your answer?
You conveniently avoided mind altering drugs like lSD and Bathsalts.
If were going to go down that road, shouldn't we legalize all drugs?

Is that not what I said?

Quote

You neglect history, society deemed drugs to be harmful and wanted laws controlling them, that meant all drugs.
Truth is, drugs are a scourge on a peaceful, productive society and society has the right to decide what it deems good, regardless of what you claim as a loss of freedom.

Shouldn't I be allowed to walk naked with 100 dogs on a leash down main street? After all, I'm not harming anyone?

No, for it is a violation of property rights to walk down a road in such a fashion that is not yours.

And the history of drug laws was not about society wanting anything. It was about specific business interests wanting to limit competition and labor groups wanting to end competition from migrant workers.

The law is not the place to enforce your personal brand of morality or your preferences on what other people should do.

It is about protecting life and property.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: hfishjr81 on December 07, 2012, 08:56:10 AM
I agree with your views on weed, being that there are worse drugs available at present for legal consumption, so we might as well cut out the drug lords and make state money. However I dont believe people are capable of completely governing themselves. 

Anarchy+Greedy nature+lack of education and religions= Screwed... Evolutionary speaking, we just aren't there yet.


Curious, are you a Zeitgeister?   
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 08:59:53 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 08:18:05 AM
Sure they do.

And many survive.

Are you denying the human drive to survive? Are you denying the human ability to adapt?

If so then how did we get here?

Bravo. Take the yawn cowardly way out and go personal!

You really suggest that humans living today are so used to receiving handouts that even the risk of starvation is not enough to get them off their butts and producing?

Good luck defending that!
And they adapt to the changing incentives facing them.

Tell me- what do you know about human action and incentive structures?
Oh no?

I have done a good job thus far. What I have not seen is you defend yours.

I am supposed to take it on your authority that humans are so changed from what they were that they are incapable of taking care of themselves.

Nonsense on stilts.

That is just an argument for preserving the status quo.

Much of the victimization going on during Katrina was done by the police themselves.

Which goes to the heart of what I am saying about the state.

I hate the status quo.

Yes. I maintain that suddenly taking everyone that is living off the government, off the programs, would lead to a major increase in crime. Not a major increase in all of them getting jobs....................they have no skills, therefore, simply getting jobs is off the table.

Arguing with you is pointless though, since I don't understand anarchism...................particularly as a solution to our current problems. It appears to be all over the map. :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Solar on December 07, 2012, 09:11:19 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 08:28:23 AM
Is that not what I said?
So to confirm, you're for legalizing all drugs, regardless of the damage they do, correct?
Quote
No, for it is a violation of property rights to walk down a road in such a fashion that is not yours.
What part of public street, do you not get?

QuoteAnd the history of drug laws was not about society wanting anything. It was about specific business interests wanting to limit competition and labor groups wanting to end competition from migrant workers.
No, you use a partial truth to make your case, when in truth, it was society that wanted control over the issue.

QuoteThe law is not the place to enforce your personal brand of morality or your preferences on what other people should do.

It is about protecting life and property.
Wrong again, murder is a moral issue, as well as many other moral issues, and drugs have proven to be the cause of many immoral actions.
But lets not go back in circles again, that is an extremely weak open ended  argument.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 09:11:50 AM
Quote from: hfishjr81 on December 07, 2012, 08:56:10 AM
I agree with your views on weed, being that there are worse drugs available at present for legal consumption, so we might as well cut out the drug lords and make state money. However I dont believe people are capable of completely governing themselves. 

Anarchy+Greedy nature+lack of education and religions= Screwed... Evolutionary speaking, we just aren't there yet.


Curious, are you a Zeitgeister?
Nope, a Rothbardian.

I disagree that humans are not "there" yet.

Society and order, as well as law and language, were never created by a government or "leader."

These things came about in a spontaneous process of voluntary association and self interested action.

The great paradox in liberalism is to explain how self interest results in social cooperation. Mises answered the puzzle with his "law of association."

The explanation is that humans recognize that they can live infinitely better by cooperating and dividing labor, so as to enjoy the products produced by others, rather than having to live in social isolation and produce everything we need ourselves.

It is rational to cooperate for life in society is much better than life in isolation.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 09:15:41 AM
Quote from: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 08:59:53 AM
I hate the status quo.

Yes. I maintain that suddenly taking everyone that is living off the government, off the programs, would lead to a major increase in crime. Not a major increase in all of them getting jobs....................they have no skills, therefore, simply getting jobs is off the table.

Arguing with you is pointless though, since I don't understand anarchism...................particularly as a solution to our current problems. It appears to be all over the map. :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)

I wouldnt say it is pointless. Obviously something is gained by it or we wouldnt engage in these acts.

Check out anarcho-capitalism for a more specific explanation of what I am proposing.

Everyone has some skills. They can cook or clean, answer phones or work a fryer.

There are a huge number of jobs people with little skills can do to provide for themselves.

How about pet sitting?

Working in a legal pot farm?
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 09:54:56 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 07, 2012, 09:11:19 AM
So to confirm, you're for legalizing all drugs, regardless of the damage they do, correct?

Yes.
Quote

What part of public street, do you not get?

Why would I favor public ownership of streets? As long as we are doing away with drug laws, and laws against victimless crimes, lets also do away with public property.

Quote
No, you use a partial truth to make your case, when in truth, it was society that wanted control over the issue.

Society wanted nothing for society is a group of people. Society does not act, value, think or plan.

Individuals do.

Quote
Wrong again, murder is a moral issue, as well as many other moral issues, and drugs have proven to be the cause of many immoral actions.
But lets not go back in circles again, that is an extremely weak open ended  argument.

Yes, murder is a moral issue. But it is also a violation of property rights. All violations of property rights are moral issues.

The drug war, and the laws that put people in cages when they have not harmed anyone are immoral.

The problem arises when one attempts to enforce their brand of morality on others, when the acts in question do not amount to property rights violations.

So I may find prostitution or gambling to be morally wrong, but providing these acts are undertaken by consenting adults, the law can say nothing about it without becoming arbitrary to my preferences.

When private property rights violations are the standard the law cannot become arbitrary.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: kramarat on December 07, 2012, 10:03:16 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 09:15:41 AM
I wouldnt say it is pointless. Obviously something is gained by it or we wouldnt engage in these acts.

Check out anarcho-capitalism for a more specific explanation of what I am proposing.

Everyone has some skills. They can cook or clean, answer phones or work a fryer.

There are a huge number of jobs people with little skills can do to provide for themselves.

How about pet sitting?

Working in a legal pot farm?

I agree that people that can, should be working. But I think an overnight withdrawal of the government freebies would lead to mayhem.

What I think is naive, is to think that millions of people that have, (in many cases), only experienced public assistance, many for multiple generations, are going to suddenly stand up and say, " Oh wow, no more free money, house, food, healthcare. I'll go get a minimum wage job and buy all of those things myself."

Clinton's welfare to work bill was working, and could have incrementally been drawn down to shorter and shorter periods of public assistance, and eventually bringing it to a minimum. Obama has destroyed any chance of that happening in the near future.

Humans are very adaptable. There is also a learning curve involved. Take a person that has never left the city, (rich or poor), and dump them in the wilderness, and they will be dead within a few days.

It took the government decades to create these legions of people with no will whatsoever. Undoing it won't happen in a week.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Solar on December 07, 2012, 10:35:39 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 09:54:56 AM
Yes.
Then I see no reason to continue.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 01:08:18 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 07, 2012, 10:35:39 AM
Then I see no reason to continue.

This is why so many Conservatives are turned off by this brand of "libertarianism," although I consider the Founders true Libertarians.  This label was taken over by the OWS types and it is really anti-libertarian, just as the true "liberals" were the Founders who rejected the oppressive State.  Today's, "liberal" loves a powerful State at the expense of the Individual.

The Founders were heavily into ECONOMIC liberty but were a moral people. They warned that our nation wouldn't survive without it. Today's pretend libertarian never talks about economic freedom just what they call "social" issues--really the foundational MORAL issues are what they resent.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: Solar on December 07, 2012, 01:30:53 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 01:08:18 PM
This is why so many Conservatives are turned off by this brand of "libertarianism," although I consider the Founders true Libertarians.  This label was taken over by the OWS types and it is really anti-libertarian, just as the true "liberals" were the Founders who rejected the oppressive State.  Today's, "liberal" loves a powerful State at the expense of the Individual.

The Founders were heavily into ECONOMIC liberty but were a moral people. They warned that our nation wouldn't survive without it. Today's pretend libertarian never talks about economic freedom just what they call "social" issues--really the foundational MORAL issues are what they resent.
In the Founders day, someone using drugs was seen as a sinner, and were usually left to their own demise.
In fact society back then knew the dangers and steered clear for two reasons, one you would probably go to Hell and secondly, they knew there was no one to bail them out, they would be on their own.
Not to mention the fact that most people were struggling to develop a better life for their offspring.

Shame played a huge part as well, something lost on today's generation.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: walkstall on December 07, 2012, 02:11:38 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 07, 2012, 01:30:53 PM
In the Founders day, someone using drugs was seen as a sinner, and were usually left to their own demise.
In fact society back then knew the dangers and steered clear for two reasons, one you would probably go to Hell and secondly, they knew there was no one to bail them out, they would be on their own.
Not to mention the fact that most people were struggling to develop a better life for their offspring.

Shame played a huge part as well, something lost on today's generation.

The only "shame" in this day and age is getting found out.  Then it is sweep under the rug.
Title: Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
Post by: TowardLiberty on December 07, 2012, 02:41:48 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 07, 2012, 01:08:18 PM
Today's pretend libertarian never talks about economic freedom just what they call "social" issues--really the foundational MORAL issues are what they resent.

You must have been talking to some really idiotic libertarians if they cant speak rationally on economic freedom, property rights and morality- and they should be able to relate them to each other in a coherent manner.