0 votes

looking for conversion/ RP educational/ promotional content?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Discussion I had with someone who didnt agree with Dr. Paul's vi

Ron Paul is not taking up for the enemy he is simply stating what our intelligence agents have stated. These are the men and women that are actually in other countries on the ground acquiring actionable intelligence on why they attacked us on 911. Bombing other countries does cause “blowback”, which is the term the CIA gave for the consequences of our covert actions in other countries. How did we defend freedom with the war on terror when we continued to lose our rights after 911? The Military Commissions Act of 2006 gave Bush and future president the authority to establish separate justice system for trying alien unlawful enemy combatants. It defined both “torture” and “materially supporting hostilities” broadly. President Bush and his lawyers could claim that any American citizen he chooses as being an “enemy combatant”. They had authority to go to your house, blindfold you and take you to a secret prison and torture you in isolation without a jury and trial, which violates both the 1st,4thand 8th amendments of the constitution. Then we had NSPD 51, HSPD 20, and the patriot act, that were a violation of the constitution. What is conservative about that? Isn’t it conservative to uphold the constitution, the founders did not intend for the constitution to be a living document. I never said that Saddam and Bin Laden weren’t cruel. How come we have never went after North Korea or China for what they have done to their own citizens. Anybody that knows anything about history knows there leaders certainly weren’t nice. Kim IL Sung who ruled North Korea from 1948-9 killed around 1.6 million of his own people. Under Mao Zedong’ china, there were around 45 million Chinese murdered from 1958 to 1962. Saddam Hussein had about 600,000 innocent people killed. How come we never went after the Chinese for what their government done, they killed more innocent people than Saddam? The United States never took direct military action towards North Korea from the 70’s to today, why? We are in the Middle East for several reasons and it doesn’t have to do just with taking care of the “bad guys”. According to our 17 intelligence agencies and 911 commission, Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Saudi Arabia for instance, is extremely harsh and brutal government that happens to be our ally. Innocent people are murdered and degraded in that country, yet we do nothing about it. Saudi Arabia is one of the most brutal and harsh governments in the world with serious human rights violations yet we have done nothing about it. 15 of the 19 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so how come we never went into Saudi Arabia?

What is the difference between some of the pharmaceutical drugs and other drugs? I am going to use my biology book that I had to use for my biopsychology class in one of my graduate classes. The information I am going to present is fact and not based on emotions and/or assumptions. All of the information is published in peer reviewed scholarly journals.

Each year 100,000 people die from prescription drugs in the United States. Around 250 billion is spent on those drugs each year and around 65 percent of the United States takes some type of prescription drug. Medicaid and Medicare is approximately 20% of the federal budget and gives individuals “drugs” thanks to tax payers. How come tobacco is not illegal? It has over 4,000 chemicals and is responsible for about 450,000 deaths a year in the United States. 70% of all people who experiment with smoking become addicted whereas 10% for alcohol and 30% for heroin become addicted. Over 100,000 people die each year from alcohol in the United States yet it’s legal. About 2 million people in the United States use marijuana. Long term heavy use of marijuana has effects that are far less severe than those of its legal cousins: nicotine and alcohol. Also, there is no direct evidence of brain damage in those who use it regularly (again, this is from the scientists and experts). Studies have shown that it helps cancer and aids patients. About 30 million Americans have used crack or cocaine. Opiates: Heroin and Morphine are highly addictive, but direct health hazards of chronic exposure are surprisingly rare. Opiate addiction is actually more prevalent among doctors, nurses, and dentists (are they “criminal”, I would say that they contribute greatly to society overall). Tobacco and alcohol have a far greater negative impact than do marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. If you exclude tobacco and alcohol, there are only 20,000 deaths a year in the United States of ALL other drugs combined. There seems to be a discrepancy from the facts vs. the emotions and assumptions.

Here is what several eminent psych-pharmacologists, biologists, and political scientists have concluded about the United States approach to drug control: There is no way of stopping the supply of drugs-every major drug bust merely increase the price of drugs and encourages more illicit suppliers to enter the market.” It is basic economics that when you make something illegal it increases the price; therefore it is more lucrative to sell or provide that service. “It makes little sense to persecute and punish the sick and the weak.” “It is hypocritical to take severe measure against some drugs while allowing others that are more dangerous to be openly advertised.” Here are the recommendations by the experts: “The only way to reduce the use of addictive drugs is by reducing the demand. Some of the billions that are currently being spent on arresting and housing drug users in crowded jails would be better spent on education, research, and social programs.” “More emphasis should be placed on caring for addicts than on persecuting them.” “Laws that govern drug use should be enforceable and should be tailored to the hazards of each drug. Current laws are neither.” All cigarette and alcohol adverting should be curtailed.” “The united states should learn some lessons from countries that have taken alternative approaches to drug control.” In Switzerland policies such as these have been instituted with good results. “Addicts are no longer a presence in the streets and parks; drug-related crime has substantially declined; the physical and social well-being of the addicts has greatly improved; there has been a decrease in heroin use by addicts; and the number of new heroin addicts has declined"

Sixty-five percent of the country takes a prescription drug these days. In 2005 alone, we spent $250 billion on them. What is the basic difference between “hard drugs” and Pharmaceutical drugs? The bottom line is that they both can be abused, they have health risks, and they alter consciousness (which is an entirely different subject that most people don’t understand). However, prescription drugs kill more people in the United States than all of the hard drugs combined, yet they are legal (100,000 to 20,000). Sounds like cognitive dissonance if you ask me. When looking at the facts Ron Paul’s stance is more logical than the fascist’s approach that has been a complete failure over the past several decades that has costs tax payers around a trillion dollars. The drug war and policies has been overwhelming racist. Studies have shown that Black males are arrested and convicted of drug crimes disproportionally so from white males. We spend more money on incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders than we do on education. On average it costs 30,000 a year to keep someone in prison and around 10,000 a year on a child. Some districts (majority is black) in the United States don’t even have enough books in their classrooms and cannot get any back supplies. What happens to mostly black children who don’t get an adequate education, how are they supposed to get jobs when the society screws them over? It takes little skills to sell drugs and is an easy way to make GOOD money. The best thing to do is to end the drug war so that we can spend that money on educating those who are not being educated (they will than more likely become contributing members of society). Making drugs legal will dramatically reduce the costs which will dramatically decrease the incentive to sell them. Therefore, those individuals will end up looking for different jobs.

How do you define conservative or liberal? Labels are distraction from the REAL issues such as the Federal Reserve System and the debt. I don’t care about labels I care about living in a state and country that is free, where I OWN MY BODY. The government, bureaucrats, wall street bankers, politicians, corporations, lobbyist don’t own MY body. None of those “criminals” can fix the economy or create a moral and healthy society. They can only destroy jobs and make things worse. It is impossible to legislate for morality; it simply has not worked since recorded history. The founders of this country had the philosophy that you OWN YOUR BODY and that you HAVE certain RIGHTS. They are your rights NOT privileges. When the government, bureaucrats, wall street bankers, politicians, corporations, and lobbyists create, write laws, lobby for laws that benefit them then that is considered a PRIVELAGE, not a god given RIGHT. Rights come from your humanity or GOD if you decide to believe that, not from the government, bureaucrats, wall street bankers, politicians, corporations, and lobbyists. A PRIVEALAGE means you have to receive permission and a natural RIGHT means that you don’t need permission. Do you honestly want those individuals determining what you can and cannot do? Permission has to be granted from those in authority. The authorities are the government, bureaucrats, wall street bankers, politicians, corporations, and lobbyists.

Ron Paul’s views are not wacky he is on the money, he is with the founders, he is with freedom and the constitution, he is not with the authorities that I previously mentioned. The drug laws are diametrically opposed to the VIEWS the founders had when they founded this country. Ron Paul is not a control freak who wants to control your life; he respects your free will to make mistakes and to correct those mistakes. If you hurt someone the courts will take care of it and you will be punished. The GOP candidates are all the same when it comes to understanding economics. Therefore, it is a wasted vote for Obama or any of them. If Ron Paul is not a conservative and his views are wacky, then so were the founders. Ironically, one of the 10 planks of the manifesto is the Abolition of private PROPERTY. Your body is PRIVATE PROPERTY, what is conservative about the abolition of private property. When individuals are not RESPECTED in society it sets the precedent for bad things to occur and so the ideology of the individuals within a country is important for its safety and prosperity.

I agree that he isn’t coming off to a lot of the voters (most of them are older republicans), because they want to hear sounds bits and 20 second phrases. I’m sure a lot of voters see it as antipatriotic, but it doesn’t mean that he is. I wish those voters would read books instead of getting all there information from the news. One of his reasons for the foreign policy is because he is a student of history and knows that history does repeat itself. One of the main reasons that empires collapse throughout history is because of long term military campaigns that drain the economies resources. We have over 900 military bases in over a 130 countries that costs close to a trillion dollars a year. He has stated that he wants to cut militarism but have a strong national defense. The United States has had a history of overthrowing democratically elected leaders in other countries and propping up dictators with the use of Special Forces and CIA agents (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA118.HTM). There are documents on the internet that were actually acquired by citizens that made requests through the freedom of information act. I agree that if a country is an existential threat to the United States than appropriate action is necessary. Ron Paul voted on going into Afghanistan and getting Osama Bin Laden before we invaded. But, he also said that we should set clear concise goals that allow us to go in and get it done quickly, instead of drawing it out. When Thomas Jefferson was president the United States had problems with pirates terrorizing United States sailors. He declared war on those INDIVIDUALS not on the countries they were from.

If a law is unjust and unfair than it shouldn’t be obeyed. Jim Crow laws were unjust laws that discriminated blacks. There are a lot of ridiculous laws in this country; there is actually a law in one of the southern states that makes it illegal for someone to put an ice cream cone in their pants pocket. It is a silly law, but yet it is technically illegal if it is violated. I didn’t know that about your mom, she shouldn’t be in prison because of marijuana. Our constitution was actually written on Hemp and George Washington actually grew hemp in order to sell to different companies.
The labels have changed some over the past couple of decades. Grover Cleveland was a democrat after the civil war that was nearly identical to Ron Paul. In fact, both parties were almost identical up until around ww1 to ww2. Both parties were for small, limited, constitutional government that had a noninterventionist’s foreign policy. Noninterventionist means that you are friendly and trade with other countries. If you get attacked then you attack those individuals, which is what happened during ww2 and with the Barbary pirates. Starting with FDR, and I hate to say this, but democrats started to have more and more socialist’s policies. Republicans eventually started to do the same things overtime. Neoconservative ideology has slowly started to replace conservatism over the past couple of decades. Neo-conservatism goes back to professor leo strauss and actually come from the far left, where they used to be identified as Trotskyites. Many of their beliefs were the same as communist and over the past couple of decades their ideology subverted old-time conservatism. Some of the roots of neo-conservatism ironically has communist connections. Neocons had/have several beliefs that include a strong centralized government and an extensive welfare state. They are also not supportive of free market economics and believe in centralized planning at the federal level. Preemptive war and imperialism were/are also some of their main beliefs. Over the couple of decades there have been defectors from the Soviet Union that stated that the Soviet Union was heavily involved in subverting and changing the political beliefs of both parties in the United States. In fact, there was a program called active measures/ideological subversion, it included certain strategies to change the political environment of the United States that would eventually lead to the collapse of the United States. If you look at both parties and their actions over the past 2 decades you will see that they both have been supporters of big government and have enacted legislation that has undermined the free market/capitalism. Interestingly enough, the main 2 reasons the Soviet Union collapsed was because of a centrally planned economy and its imperialism. Right now, we are faced with two main issues and could very well have a collapsed economy in the future if we could take the necessary actions soon. The monetary system (Federal Reserve System), the debt, and imperialism are the big issues that need corrected. If we don’t correct those problems then we may very well end up as Rome as well as the other fallen empires throughout history.

You cannot make people moral by creating laws. However, you can somewhat deter people from behaving immorally but it’s mostly ineffective. For the most part, laws reflect the society and cannot be enacted in order to make a society moral. It has to come from the individuals themselves making moral decisions collectively within the society. Abortion is probably the best example of preventing people from behaving immorally. The issue of abortion is a complicated subject. I believe in prolife personally, but I think that the states should decide instead of the federal government. A woman’s body is her body and her property. This just is my view, once a woman becomes pregnant and creates a life she can’t take away that life, it would be murder. A baby’s body is its own property. I don’t like getting into the abortion issue becomes its complicated, I’m not a women, and people are very touchy about it. I’ve heard people debate it very well both ways and it’s over my head. Another thing about being prolife is that you should not want to go to war carelessly, because innocent people are killed. Collateral damage always occurs in wars. I just read a few weeks ago where the DOD Or DOJ stated that for every terrorists killed by a predator drone an additional 40 innocent people were killed, most of them were women and children. That would be like China coming here to kill American citizens that hated China and were involved in bombing one of their important buildings. If the Chinese troops were in this country and killed one of my family members I would probably grab my ar15 and try to drive them out of the country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI0etqzbqDM

People can get married by either a judge or a church. There are different sects and Christian denominations, in fact, scholars have noted that dramatically different beliefs among Christians occurred right after Jesus died. There was a female priest that was murdered by a couple of male priests of a different sect, because they did not personally believe that women should be priests. Christians have continued to fight with each other on what Jesus believed in and will continue to do so. Christians simply don’t all believe the same thing; many don’t have a problem with gay marriage. If a particular church doesn’t want to marry to gay people than they have a right not to marry those individuals. If another church wants to they should be allowed.

People that are gay will still live with each other and go to public places with each other. If they want to officially be married by law I don’t see what the problem is. As long two people don’t hurt anyone than there should be a problem. In a free society, individuals have the right to do what they want as long as they don’t hurt other people. I don’t think I have the right to tell 2 adults what they can and cannot do. I believe it’s rude for me to tell people how they should live their life. I have little if any control over what other people do. When people are in private they are still going to engage in different behaviors even if there are laws. However, with abortion most people will go to a medical doctor when they are going to labor, if it is made illegal than the doctor is more likely to not have an abortion procedure.