11 votes

ThyBlackMan: Ron Paul & Herman Cain’s Different Philosophies….

Another fine ThyBlackman article on Ron Paul..this time from another staff writer, Mr. Dell Gines.

Looks like the Revolution is winning more and more hearts and minds of our staff writing Brothers over at ThyBlackMan.

---
Excerpts:

"Ron Paul is a libertarian, Herman Cain is a far right conservative. This makes them almost as different as a Republican versus a Democrat."

"An example of the difference — Gay Marriage. Ron Paul would most likely tell you that he does not care if two gays get married, but that it has to be personal in nature. The government should not be involved in any marriage, not just gay marriage. It should be between the two people and their religion or relationship, and the government has no business in providing anyone a marriage license or giving special consideration to married people."

"An example of the difference — Drug Legalization. Ron Paul believes that individuals have the right to choose to consume and do the things that they want (even if it harms them) as long as it doesn’t impose on the freedoms of others. This means that the use of drugs are the choice of the grown adult and the government should not impose itself to stop them. He is against the war on drugs, which he believes has created a prison state and increased our prison population to a ridiculous level."

"An Example of the Difference – Islam. Ron Paul believes that each American should be free to worship as they choose, as long as that worship does not harm the freedom of other people to worship. He would have no problem appointing an Islamic individual to a position of power if that person upheld libertarian principles."

"If I had to choose I would choose Ron Paul because the elimination of the war on drugs in and of itself would be of great benefit to the Black community. But other than that, as an independent political pragmatist, I would have a hard time supporting either in a presidential election if they got that far."

http://thyblackman.com/2011/09/28/ron-paul-herman-cain%E2%80...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Anyone who votes simply on Color of skin

is a RACIST. What is practical to one person may not be practical to another.

What should be practical to anyone should be, no WAR, no Death, no Forced debt, no forced healthcare, no forced political correctness, no forced vaccinations, no forced anything that is not a proven public good, which needs to be agreed upon by agreed upon process. The CONSTITUTION.

Let's get priorities straight. Maybe then America can kick ass again.

In regards to the

In regards to the Constitution:

The constitution permits war. The current wars may not have gone through the proper channels, but it isn't like Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't have been declared by Congress if Bush had requested it.

The constitution says nothing about the death penalty. In fact, considering when it was written, I suppose that the founders would have approved of killing criminals who violated federal law, as they do with those who commit treason.

What government is forcing political correctness? Are you being jailed for being politically incorrect?

Jefferson legalize forced healthcare on sailors in the 1790s. Just saying.

"no forced anything that is not a proven public good. which needs to be agreed upon by agreed upon process

Excuse me? So if it is a proven good, then it is OK to force things on people? This makes no sense to me! What standard is there to prove something is for the good of the public? What people will decide that?

The Supreme Court uses rational basis review to decide what is a public good.

For example, I think that EMTALA is good for the public, unquestionably. I think that Social Security is necessary so that the retired do not end up on government assistance (the alternative being abject poverty, which hurts everybody). But there is a lot of argument to both those things being unconstitutional?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I would like to clarify a few

I would like to clarify a few things that have become obfuscated, whether on purpose or accidentally, I can't say.

The term "gay marriage" makes a statement. If you use that term, you are recognizing some type of a relationship between homosexuals as a marriage, which it obviously is not. It would be more accurate to say that a Libertarian really doesn't care what two individuals do, as long as their actions don't affect others. Recognizing a homosexual arrangement as a marriage is going too far.

I don't think Dr. Paul thinks that everyone should decide for himself or herself what to smoke, ingest or inject. What he is saying is it is none of government's business, particularly the federal government's. That is a lot different from tacit approval. For example, I think people would be a lot better off if they didn't consume alcohol, but I am not a prohibitionist. And the reason I am not a prohibitionist is because making a substance like alcohol, or any other recreational drug illegal does not stop people from using it if they chose. What it does is make the substance more expensive and opens up a lucrative market to criminal gangs.

As regards Freedom of Religion, the demonization of Islam and Muslims and identifying them with terrorism is not only un-American, it is extremely dangerous. Allowing politicians to determine what we may believe, lest they brand us as "extremists" or "terrorists" creates a terrorist state - such as we see in the Islamic Republic of Iran. We should all be able to distinguish between Muslims and terrorists. It is our own politicians and their media accomplices who blur the lines. Isn't this exactly what Hitler did in Germany?

If we are to win this battle, we need to think clearly. We cannot allow our opponents to frame the argument for us, and to define our position. Most of what passes for Conservatism today is really just the Neocon Agenda. If we are to defeat these people, we need to be smarter than they are, or at least able to see through their propaganda.

The article was good until

The article was good until this:

"as an independent political pragmatist, I would have a hard time supporting either in a presidential election if they got that far."

I hate how easy it is dismiss any ideology as being "unpragmatic." When you dig beneath the surface (I know, it's just so easy hip to say "oh, I want a balanced and practical approach" and not actually research the facts) you see that Paul's ideas *are pragmatic*.

Check out LibertyHQ, where I aggregate the all best articles on libertarianism by topic! For now, the "Issues in Libertopia" section is the most developed. Find a link to it below:

LibertyHQ

Pragmatic and pragmatist

Those words are starting to get on my last nerve. I have to forcibly stop myself from rolling my eyes when I hear or read them. "Centrist" is another nail-on-the-chalkboard for me.

Yeah, kind of good until you get to the bottom line

Just like a 'friend' is kind of fun until they stab you in the back.

@ anothernobody

i have to laugh a bit about your comment on gay marriage, please tell me where in the bible it states that we are to use government or a country to enforce christian beliefs?..the Bible specifically states the responsibility of furthering the good news and furthering the kingdom of God is left to the followers of Jesus. The government has no business interfering with marriage. im against homosexuality but i understand its not up to the government to inforce my beliefs, as a christian we're not suppose to use force to further the kingdom of God anyways. what your saying is that instead of taking the responsibility given to you to witness and turn homosexuals away from their sin you instead want to have government make a law forcing homosexuals to abide by your beliefs..even God gave us free will..so many christians need to get over this, and maybe take a step back and ask why it is we would even have to make a law preventing gay marriage maybe we're not doing our job witnessing like we ought to be..

Thank You

I would like to shake your hand. Glad to know there are other other Christians who don't believe government should intrude in the personal lives of people even if their personal behavior isn't something we as Christians condone. Since I live in Mobile, AL, I seem to be surrounded by Christians who believe prohibition of non-Christian principles is the solution to all of our problems.

Good examples

of why your average Republican wont support Paul. The one example that you didn't include from the article itself is the one that would most likely appeal to the average Republican who is tired of the endless war and occupation. All the other examples you included in your exerpt will not help his chances with anyone but the liberals. Facts are facts.

Homosexuals have no right to marry because marriage is an institution given by God who calls sodomy an abomination. Man has no right to try and change God.

Although a change needs to be made to the drug laws the wholesale legalization of drugs would be a major mistake. Have you ever seen someone waste their lives addicted to and eventually dying from acute heroin toxicity? Has Paul?

Islamic sharia law is not what we need in this country and while all the Christians are out there saying "we need to be tolerent and loving" the islamists are zealous to change things to suit their own beliefs and could care even less for the constition.

Wow so many

innacurate statements in one little square.Can I ask all of you if you have ever been approached by a Muslim that has tried to convert you? I have made some Muslim friends and they actually feel we worship the same God. God=Allah. Now I have had many Christians try to shove their beliefs down my throat before they even bother to ask what my beliefs are ! Where are you hiding all these zealous Muslims? Can I not see them for all of the Christian Zealots?

Review John

Review John 8:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8&version=NIV

Check out LibertyHQ, where I aggregate the all best articles on libertarianism by topic! For now, the "Issues in Libertopia" section is the most developed. Find a link to it below:

LibertyHQ

It has nothing to do with it.

John chapter 8 does not address any of the above comments.

You seem slightly confused

Please allow me to address some of your statements:

Homosexuals have no right to marry because marriage is an institution given by God who calls sodomy an abomination. Man has no right to try and change God.

Prime example of the very reason very reasonable men wanted religion OUT of government. No right to marry? You need to think about what the essence of marriage is. It's nothing more than a contract between consenting individuals to journey through life in the fashion they see fit. So these individuals have no rights because you throw a label on them? For that matter, not all homosexuals practice sodomy, and some heterosexual couples do. But either way, how does that in any way, shape, or form infringe upon your (or anyone else's) rights as an individual? Are people being forced into gay marriage?

Have you ever seen someone waste their lives addicted to and eventually dying from acute heroin toxicity? Has Paul?

So with our current laws people aren't dying of this? I've seen people die in car accidents. Maybe we should save the world by making the choice of mobility illegal. Either you believe in slavery or you believe in freedom. I own my body. You can choose to sell yours. But never do you or anyone else have the right to tell me or anyone else what I/they can and cannot put in my/their body. If I choose to drink anti-freeze that's MY right to choose as stupid as it may be. And guess what.. no amount of laws is going to prevent that if that's what I want to do. As a parent do I ever want to see my children become addicts? To not know the answer to that would be absurd. I grew up in a household where substance abuse rendered some family members incoherent for days. Jobs were lost, lives were nearly lost. Of course addiction is bad. But no law in the world can prevent that. You cannot legislate thought. You cannot legislate desire. Furthermore, you have no right whatsoever, not even if you have the power through government, to FORCE your views and values on any other individual as good intentioned as they may be. You cannot force your good intentions on someone without violating them. You have every right to try to persuade, but force is a violation of freedom. Force and Freedom on antonyms.

Islamic sharia law is not what we need in this country and while all the Christians are out there saying "we need to be tolerent and loving" the islamists are zealous to change things to suit their own beliefs and could care even less for the constition.

Islamic sharia law may not be compatible with freedom, but choice is. Furthermore, who is talking about making it LAW? But if they were, how is a Muslim trying to force his/her views on everyone any different than a Christian trying to violate the rights of individuals who are homosexual? Oh.. we forget, your morals are right for everyone and theirs are wrong. Worship the devil or bags of sand for all anyone should care, provided you don't violate anyone else or their property. It doesn't mean you have to like it. You can simply choose not to follow it. Also this smacks of the falsehood that 'they attack us because of our freedom.' If that is your belief in any way, shape or form, let me dispel that myth. I'd like to refer you to Robert Pape's work where he compiled a database of every known suicide terrorist attack - including the motivations for the attacks.

This is part 1 of 4 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM You should be able to follow this to the links to the other 3.

Where is your brain?

"You need to think about what the essence of marriage is. It's nothing more than a contract between consenting individuals to journey through life in the fashion they see fit."

WRONG! Marriage is an institution of God and is between a man and a woman. Period.

"Either you believe in slavery or you believe in freedom."

Make up your mind! Do you believe in slavery or not? Addiction is the ultimate slavery. So you think people should "legally" profit from addicting children to heroin. You are an idoit.

"Furthermore, who is talking about making it LAW?"

Muslims.

"Also this smacks of the falsehood that 'they attack us because of our freedom."

I never said that. Don't muddy the waters.

Aphobe

Is there anything you don't have a fear or phobia of? Maybe you could never handle freedom. You are afraid of freedom.

You actually use addiction as a comparison to slavery when
it seems you want to religiously enslave everyone to your beliefs all the while fearing it is what another religion will do to you? Interesting.

And this is not coming from an athiest or non believer.

For some one with such strong belief you sure seem to think the god af another is a terrible threat to your God. Or is it the same God? You do know Muslims also love Jesus right? There story is a bit different from our book, but same in many ways.

Who's muddying waters?

WRONG! Marriage is an institution of God and is between a man and a woman. Period.

That's fine well and good if you wish to believe that. And you can pretend that you and others who use the same argument aren't just hiding behind the cross to promote hatred and discrimination. But the problem is that to enforce (i.e. force upon others) that mentality is to claim ownership of other adults and dictate what mutually agreed upon behavior they may engage in. That's slavery. I certainly didn't elect you to be my god, so you can take your hatred and go pretend to own someone else.

Make up your mind! Do you believe in slavery or not? Addiction is the ultimate slavery. So you think people should "legally" profit from addicting children to heroin. You are an idoit.

To become an addict is to first exercise the choice to use. People are not forced to use. Saying again: CHOICE. That is not slavery. And adults who fall victim to it need to take responsibility for their actions. Being an addict is a terrible thing that I wish upon nobody, but being an addict isn't a crime against anyone in and of itself. Violating others is a crime. What is more damaging is people who think their "humane" beliefs are so vital that they need to force 'idiots' to be safe from themselves with laws that actually strip people of their very humanity - the freedom to make our own choices in life and either profit or suffer by them.

Selling to children? Children aren't legally, logically, nor emotionally capable of making the consensual decision to partake since they are not capable of accepting the responsibility for their actions(in general). Adults are. Can we legally sell alcohol or cigarettes to children? No. We're talking about ADULTS choosing for themselves. So the argument is still the same. Either we own our own bodies or we don't. And if we don't then we're slaves. Period. Being a 'slave' to our own choices (e.g. heroin addiction) isn't really slavery, it's avoiding responsibility and corrective action. And reducing yourself to demagoguery and ad hominem attacks doesn't make your illogic any less so.

"Furthermore, who is talking about making it LAW?"

Muslims.

I'll admit I may have missed some proposed legislation, but I've never heard of anyone voting on such things at the state level nor at the federal level. Please send examples. But regardless you can probably refer to the 1st Amendment.

There was much applause.

There was much applause.

Check out LibertyHQ, where I aggregate the all best articles on libertarianism by topic! For now, the "Issues in Libertopia" section is the most developed. Find a link to it below:

LibertyHQ

The Irony

The Irony of our entire situation is very strange, I will not go any further but just think about our entire nations history and where we are now.

Thanks, that was

very interesting. Hopefully as time goes on he will fully endorse Dr. Paul because we are running out of time. Government is no friend of anyone other than themselves and corporate buddies.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Support?

Mr. Gines, I presume, says: "I would have a hard time supporting either in a presidential election if they got that far."

Mind if I ask why? If not Ron Paul, then who would you support, and why?

Freedom is my Worship Word!

He's probably a..

Progressive Democrat, they're usually the ones who favor positions on legalize drugs, but I bet he likes the welfare state.

Thanks for posting. The

Thanks for posting. The comments are quite informative. Maybe we can convince him yet..:)

reedr3v's picture

Yes, thanks for posting, RPinoy

.