Ron Paul jokes: "I don't want to use heroin" so I need drug laws

[severely etarded]

He also, as a libertarian, says he would have voted against the bill due to it's unconstitutionality. This is what I mean when I say the constitution isn't written in stone.

That doesn't make sense though. Libertarians are supposed to be for civil liberties. I don't remember him ever saying that though

And you're best answer is to build a giant wall? This doesn't address the problem nor does it offer a realistic solution.

Why would somebody so conservative with limited government values want to spend so much on a wall? Beats me. Sounds like rhetoric to get them racist GOP votes or something maybe lol

You're going to need health care wether or not you choose to live a healthy lifestyle. I don't like the idea of personally paying for a stranger's unwise lifestyle decisions either, but health care is a basic human right which should be a public achievement in every successful nation. And it is, aside from in the US and in Mexico.

Well, to be fair I think a lot of the healthcare issues in the USA could be solved if the pharmaceutical / insurance industries stopped lobbying congress..

Then with a lowered cost, the states could give out medicaid benefits.


I think Paul opposes income tax on the principle that direct taxation is wrong, regardless of if it's state or federal.

I'm all for ending things like the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, and the Patriot Act too, but Ron paul isn't the only politician saying these things and he doesn't have a magic wand to pull the plug. The public is going to have to press a little harder before more and more people in congress will have the nerve to address these issues.

Obama talked a lot of rhetoric about the patriot act before getting elected too though

 

[Droppersneck]

I like Ron paul but he is even a bit nutty for me in areas. His son is the man I illegally registered in KY just to vote for him-true story

 

[Bardeaux]

That doesn't make sense though. Libertarians are supposed to be for civil liberties. I don't remember him ever saying that though

Exhibit A:

NSFW:

Exhibit B:

In his own words

Why would somebody so conservative with limited government values want to spend so much on a wall? Beats me. Sounds like rhetoric to get them racist GOP votes or something maybe lol

See: Exhibit A

Well, to be fair I think a lot of the healthcare issues in the USA could be solved if the pharmaceutical / insurance industries stopped lobbying congress..

Even if there were no lobbies health insurance would still be a business.

Then with a lowered cost, the states could give out medicaid benefits.

A universal system would greatly cut medical expenditures all around the board. People freak about about the cost, but in reality each individual would be paying much much less in health costs each year. Medicaid/medicare are expensive programs.

Obama talked a lot of rhetoric about the patriot act before getting elected too though

Exactly :D

RP isn't going to ride into Washington and fix everything before lunch. The general population has a powerful voice and will be the deciding factor wether they realize it or not. Right now all Washington is hearing from the people is "we want jobs and we want to lower the deficit", which in turn is all we're hearing from our politicians.

 

[severely etarded]

Exhibit B:

In his own words

Did you even watch the entire video? RP explains, in his own words that he supports and I quote "Segregation & slavery were created by government laws, as libertarians we want to repeal those laws."

Chris matthews is pulling a Rush Limbaugh / Shaun Hannity in the video and keeps rudely yelling over Paul in the video, insinuating Paul is a racist because he supports property rights, which is completely different.

What Paul is saying is that Jim crow LAWS were made by government, and libertarians support civil liberties = less laws / law enforcement i.e. more civil rights.

See: Exhibit A

All politicians speak rhetoric to get votes. You don't get votes by being brutally honest, you know? See Obama on the patriot act

Even if there were no lobbies health insurance would still be a business.

No, actually. Health insurance companies are so successful to this day because of the lobbying in congress, that has passed laws requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.... HMO's inflate the cost of healthcare. You want to reduce the cost? Simple answer - eliminate the third party making profits.

A universal system would greatly cut medical expenditures all around the board. People freak about about the cost, but in reality each individual would be paying much much less in health costs each year. Medicaid/medicare are expensive programs.

Actually, there's no real reason each state couldn't opt to have medicaid coverage, or whatever they want to do, based on however the citizens of that state want the government run. Yes the programs are expensive, just saying there's no reason that hardcore conservative states shouldn't be able to decide they don't want medicaid, if the people of that state decide that is what they want.

That's libertarianism. The power of choice. Liberty

RP isn't going to ride into Washington and fix everything before lunch. The general population has a powerful voice and will be the deciding factor wether they realize it or not. Right now all Washington is hearing from the people is "we want jobs and we want to lower the deficit", which in turn is all we're hearing from our politicians.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect that from any politicians. But you gotta have some kind of hope after Obama deceived us all... Would you rather vote for obama, again? I think RP at least deserves a single 4 year shot to practice what he preaches. After all, Obama had one (and failed miserably). If paul fails, there will be another election. But every politician deserves a fair shot to practice what he preaches. Paul's voting record is consistent with that too.

 

[Bardeaux]

Did you even watch the entire video? RP explains, in his own words that he supports and I quote "Segregation & slavery were created by government laws, as libertarians we want to repeal those laws."

If you just repeal the Jim Crow laws, you only repeal them on paper while in practice nothing changes. It doesn't ensure that segregation is ended, it ensures that it is no longer a legal requirement. This isn't a good enough solution. As RP was saying in the video, this isn't a major issue anymore and this is because it was outlawed.

No, actually. Health insurance companies are so successful to this day because of the lobbying in congress, that has passed laws requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.... HMO's inflate the cost of healthcare. You want to reduce the cost? Simple answer - eliminate the third party making profits.

No, health insurance wouldnt be a business without lobby power in Washington? So would they be a non-profit or would they not exist?

Actually, there's no real reason each state couldn't opt to have medicaid coverage, or whatever they want to do, based on however the citizens of that state want the government run. Yes the programs are expensive, just saying there's no reason that hardcore conservative states shouldn't be able to decide they don't want medicaid, if the people of that state decide that is what they want.

It just seems with all of the bruhaha over spending and deficits more conservatives would be open to the idea of a universal system. But some how the government spending tax money on unpopular wars is patriotic while spending tax money to provide health service is tyranny. We currently spend ~16% of our GDP on health care which is double what most other countries spend, and our system isn't up to par with most of the world and we don't cover everyone. Rather than cut cut cut the expensive programs, leaving people with less and less coverage, we should remodel the entire system and save alot of money along the way.

That's libertarianism. The power of choice. Liberty

Did you steal that from a bumper sticker? :D

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect that from any politicians. But you gotta have some kind of hope after Obama deceived us all... Would you rather vote for obama, again? I think RP at least deserves a single 4 year shot to practice what he preaches. After all, Obama had one (and failed miserably). If paul fails, there will be another election. But every politician deserves a fair shot to practice what he preaches. Paul's voting record is consistent with that too.

No

 

[severely etarded]

If you just repeal the Jim Crow laws, you only repeal them on paper while in practice nothing changes. It doesn't ensure that segregation is ended, it ensures that it is no longer a legal requirement. This isn't a good enough solution. As RP was saying in the video, this isn't a major issue anymore and this is because it was outlawed.

You realize removing jim crow laws gave blacks a voice in voting & politics... If they had a vote, they could vote to end segregation. derr. Stop watching so much Chris Matthews... He's just a "liberal" Rush Limbaugh / Sean Hannity.

Besides, people have a strong tendency to segregate themselves... IDK where you went to school, but when we went to lunch, each table had all blacks, all whites, etc. Nothing was forced, it just worked out that way. Ever heard a black person tell another "Us brothas gotta stick together". It's that kind of mentality that goes on everywhere. It's not just whites who are racist you know? IME more blacks are more hateful and aggressively racist than white people. But it's acceptable for blacks to be racist these days. Just not white people.

Either way, hate crimes are hate crimes. Mixing people up who don't like eachother just provokes more hate.

And I'm sure plenty of white people wouldn't have had a problem voting with the blacks to successfully end segregation.

No, health insurance wouldnt be a business without lobby power in Washington? So would they be a non-profit or would they not exist?

Nobody would buy health insurance if healthcare was affordable. RP is an old man, he remembers back when you didn't need health insurance because going to the doctor was actually affordable. And emergency rooms have to treat you regardless. But the whole HMO system started by Clinton admin has inflated the cost exponentially, making it unaffordable, and the new system makes you basically fucked if you don't have it. Then you go to the ER, and you don't have money so you get thousands and thousands of debt, because it's so goddamn expensive... Why? Because of the insurance-loving system in place.

It just seems with all of the bruhaha over spending and deficits more conservatives would be open to the idea of a universal system. But some how the government spending tax money on unpopular wars is patriotic while spending tax money to provide health service is tyranny. We currently spend ~16% of our GDP on health care which is double what most other countries spend, and our system isn't up to par with most of the world and we don't cover everyone. Rather than cut cut cut the expensive programs, leaving people with less and less coverage, we should remodel the entire system and save alot of money along the way.

RP is against those wars...

And to be fair, I do agree a universal system is better than the current. They know in Washington they could never afford it though, because a bunch of greedy buffoons don't want to give up their cash cow wars...

Did you steal that from a bumper sticker? :D

No, I learned about root words in elementary English class. Trying to show you the words, what the meanings are etc.

But thanks for insulting my intelligence

 

[Bardeaux]

You realize removing jim crow laws gave blacks a voice in voting & politics...If they had a vote, they could vote to end segregation. derr.

And what would they do with said voice? Enact a law stating that segregation is illegal (a kind of...civil rights act)? Your argument is going in circles. Simply removing Jim Crow laws is a better alternative than removing them and establishing anti-segregation laws because once you remove Jim Crow black people will vote to establish anti-segregation laws

Stop watching so much Chris Matthews... He's just a "liberal" Rush Limbaugh / Sean Hannity.

I rarely watch cable news networks. You said you don't ever remember Paul saying he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act so I found a video of him saying it. It was the first video that popped up, would you like another clip on a different news channel perhaps?

It's not just whites who are racist you know? IME more blacks are more hateful and aggressively racist than white people.

Yeah, because if history has shown us anything it's the black man's hatred and brutality towards the white man.

RP is against those wars...

Right, but most of the Republican base isnt/wasnt.

No, I learned about root words in elementary English class. Trying to show you the words, what the meanings are etc.

I understand the concept of libertarianism lol.

 

[severely etarded]

And what would they do with said voice? Enact a law stating that segregation is illegal (a kind of...civil rights act)? Your argument is going in circles. Simply removing Jim Crow laws is a better alternative than removing them and establishing anti-segregation laws because once you remove Jim Crow black people will vote to establish anti-segregation laws

You only responded to a single line... It's like you didn't even read the rest.

Besides, people have a strong tendency to segregate themselves... IDK where you went to school, but when we went to lunch, all races segregated themselves. We had black tables, white tables, hispanics, asians. Only a few mixed tables.

Either way, hate crimes are hate crimes. (which should be punished obviously) Forcing integration between people up who don't like eachother just provokes (even) more hate.

And I'm sure plenty of white people wouldn't have had a problem voting with the blacks to successfully end segregation.

I rarely watch cable news networks. You said you don't ever remember Paul saying he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act so I found a video of him saying it. It was the first video that popped up, would you like another clip on a different news channel perhaps?

What he said wasn't racist though. That's the way you interpretting it...

Yeah, because if history has shown us anything it's the black man's hatred and brutality towards the white man.

Have you ever heard of the Black Panthers? Malcolm X?

I live in Texas. I have experienced racism by both whites and blacks. (I am brown/hispanic.) Blacks here for the most part have more extremely hateful/racist people. Many black children here are taught from birth to hate white people. White people can be racist too, but from my experience as a median race between, blacks definately take the cake for modern racism. I know people who have been beaten up just for being white by groups of black kids. This may not have been the case in the 1960's, but since I've been around (1990-today), this has been my experience, and I'm sure many other people have experienced this.

People are always going to hate eachother. It's a fact of life we all have to accept, and try to be respectful and civil about it. Why races tend to hate eachother is a phenomonon nobody understands.

Right, but most of the Republican base isnt/wasnt.

...And then the democratic base wasn't when they took over? What's your point? I thought it was established long ago that both parties are virtually identical on policy, despite political rhetoric.

 

[Bardeaux]

You only responded to a single line... It's like you didn't even read the rest.

I had to cut out some of the fat.

Besides, people have a strong tendency to segregate themselves... IDK where you went to school, but when we went to lunch, all races segregated themselves. We had black tables, white tables, hispanics, asians. Only a few mixed tables.

So this makes it ok to forcefully seperate races? I don't understand your point.

What he said wasn't racist though. That's the way you interpretting it...

When did I call RP a racist? You're putting words in my mouth. I stated the fact that he opposes the Civil Rights Act, which he does.

Have you ever heard of the Black Panthers? Malcolm X?

Yes, there are black nationalists. So? Are you seriously comparing Malcom X to hundreds of years of slavery and violence?

I live in Texas. I have experienced racism by both whites and blacks. (I am brown/hispanic.) Blacks here for the most part have more extremely hateful/racist people. Many black children here are taught from birth to hate white people. White people can be racist too, but from my experience as a median race between, blacks definately take the cake for modern racism. I know people who have been beaten up just for being white by groups of black kids. People are always going to hate eachother.

Therefore they shouldnt be allowed to associate with each other in public? How does this fit into the discussion about civil rights? I'm not going to play the "which race is more racist?" game.

...And then the democratic base wasn't when they took over? What's your point? I thought it was established long ago that both parties are virtually identical on policy, despite political rhetoric.

You have to read. I was talking about how I don't understand why conservatives oppose universal health care but don't mind spending tax money on unpopular wars. Thats it.

 

[severely etarded]

So this makes it ok to forcefully seperate races? I don't understand your point.

I didn't say it's ok to forcefully seperate races. He said he would have wanted to repeal laws that forcefully segregate. That's what libertarians are about. Limited government / less laws, not more. Any law passed that forcefully segregates is contradictory to a true libertarian's values.

My point is, with no laws, people already do a good job segregating themselves. Progressivism has taught us everyone should have equal rights anyway.

And what would they do with said voice? Enact a law stating that segregation is illegal (a kind of...civil rights act)? Your argument is going in circles. Simply removing Jim Crow laws is a better alternative than removing them and establishing anti-segregation laws because once you remove Jim Crow black people will vote to establish anti-segregation laws

That was the point. Removing the laws gives states more power to make their own mandates. Blacks in those states get voice in those mandates(yes like their own civil rights act). Limited role federal government is all it establishes. But we're not talking if it were back then, we're talking now..

When did I call RP a racist? You're putting words in my mouth. I stated the fact that he opposes the Civil Rights Act, which he does.

He said "because of the property rights issue", not "because it ended segregation".

Yes, there are black nationalists. So? Are you seriously comparing Malcom X to hundreds of years of slavery and violence?

They are just a continuation of what was started hundreds of years ago when slaves were brought from Africa...

Therefore they shouldnt be allowed to associate with each other in public? How does this fit into the discussion about civil rights? I'm not going to play the "which race is more racist?" game.

Again, no laws means no segregation laws. Just making a point people are going to be racist, whether you force them to play nice or not.

You have to read. I was talking about how I don't understand why conservatives oppose universal health care but don't mind spending tax money on unpopular wars. Thats it.

Because they are neo-conservative. Basically, bullshitters. They are not true conservatives.

 

[SangerRainsford]

I don't have a direct quote on the subject, but Paul suggests we dismantle the EPA and other agencies of tyranny and let the market figure out if the people want environmentally friendly products and industries.

The EPA prolly should be dismantled...

 

[Bardeaux]

I didn't say it's ok to forcefully seperate races. He said he would have wanted to repeal laws that forcefully segregate. That's what libertarians are about. Limited government / less laws, not more. Any law passed that forcefully segregates is contradictory to a true libertarian's values.



My point is, with no laws, people already do a good job segregating themselves. Progressivism has taught us everyone should have equal rights anyway.

We'll have to agree to disagree that anti-segregation laws were necessary during the time period. African Americans were fed up with being denied service and being treated as second class citizens, which would have continued if segregation were allowed to continue.

That was the point. Removing the laws gives states more power to make their own mandates. Blacks in those states get voice in those mandates(yes like their own civil rights act). Limited role federal government is all it establishes. But we're not talking if it were back then, we're talking now..

We are talking if it were back then as it happened back then :D

So anti-segregation laws on the state level are all savy, but federal anti-segregation laws limit freedom, if I'm understanding it correctly.

He said "because of the property rights issue", not "because it ended segregation".

Right, but I didn't accuse him of opposing it on any principle in particular, just that he opposed it generally.

 

[severely etarded]

We'll have to agree to disagree that anti-segregation laws were necessary during the time period. African Americans were fed up with being denied service and being treated as second class citizens, which would have continued if segregation were allowed to continue.

I think segregation and racist laws by any government agency, like making blacks sit in the back of city buses should be illegal. But then again, I think blacks should have considered moving north once freed as slaves. At least until more progressive-minded people came around. What was the point of staying around in towns where they were hated? I certainly don't like being in a place where I feel hated...

We are talking if it were back then as it happened back then :D

We're talking now though. RP is a politician now

So anti-segregation laws on the state level are all savy, but federal anti-segregation laws limit freedom, if I'm understanding it correctly.

That gives states the right to customize the laws to suit the state's needs based on constituency. I think some kind of equal rights mandate was necessary though. No doubt. That's progressivism though.

 

[Herbal~Jah]

why the hell are so many of you on BL friggin democrats? I thought we were all of the "independent" mind-set...our OWN views of righteousness shall prevail! I hate Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, whatever the fuck you call yourself, if your not of the independent mind set then don't even blab to me.

 

[Bardeaux]

If you're referring to me I'm not a democrat or liberal. Or a conservative or republican

 

[severely etarded]

If you're referring to me I'm not a democrat or liberal. Or a conservative or republican

That's what's up

 

[phr]

The question of why someone who is for legalization wouldn't vote for a politician who also shares that view has been adquately answered.

We've been off topic for a bit now. Please take similar discussion to a relevant CEP thread.