View Full Version : Ron Paul Unplugged
LaoSexMachine
12-08-2007, 01:11 PM
Ron Paul Unplugged
John Stossel Interviews Republican on Personal Freedom, Drugs, Prostitution and Gay Marriage
By JOHN STOSSEL and GENA BINKLEY
Dec. 7, 2007 —
Over the last few months, I've received hundreds of e-mails from people who wanted me to interview the unconventional Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3745767&page=1). So this week I did.
In our hour-long interview, Paul and I discussed illegal immigration, the Iraq War, when war is necessary, the proper role of government, health care, drug laws, prostitution and more.
Despite relatively low poll numbers (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=3953614&page=1), Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That's in part because he's raised a ton of money (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/paul-raises-jaw.html), and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It's one reason we're posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active. In fact, he's the most Googled presidential candidate (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3965657&page=1).
Next week, ABCNEWS.com will post five additional video segments and articles from the interview.
On Monday, we'll examine the role of government -- what the federal government should and shouldn't do. Tuesday, Paul gives his views on when war is justifiable. On Wednesday we'll tackle immigration. Like many of his GOP colleagues, Paul opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants and wants more border enforcement. But he says the real problem lies with birthright citizenship and other enticements of the American welfare state. On Thursday we discuss health care, and on Friday, we'll discuss one of the Texas congressman's favorite topics, the Constitution.
But first up, here's a preview of one topic: drugs and prostitution.
Legalize Drugs and Prostitution?
In the interview, we discussed prostitution, drug use and gay marriage. Paul says these are not things that the federal government should try to control.
"I think the government's role should not be involved in personal habits. When you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms . . .whether it's personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice," Paul asserted.
He believes the constitution says such issues should be left to the states to decide, and if a state chooses to legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin and/or prostitution, so be it.
"I would get the government out of regulating all those substances," Paul said. "I think the government's role should not be involved in personal habits. I believe those rules should protect children who are below the age of making good judgments. So, I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs."
Paul also told me that marijuana, cocaine and heroin should be legal in states that choose to permit it; he feels the same way about prostitution.
"I would get the government out of regulating all those substances," Paul said. "I believe those rules should protect children who are below the age of making good judgments. So, I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs."
And what about prostitution?
"If (people) do things that you don't like and you might find morally repugnant, I, as an individual, I don't make that judgment. So, I don't believe government can legislate virtue," said Paul.
War on Drugs
Paul disapproves of the government's war on drugs.
"It's tragic," he told me in our hourlong interview, 'matter of fact, I think the war on drugs. . . has caused the price of drugs to go up."
Paul said we shouldn't treat addicts as criminals.
"We treat 'em as criminals rather than sick people, we have pushed a lot of people into prostitution. So prostitution is related to the mistakes we've made in the drug war."
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=3970423&page=1
usa320
12-08-2007, 01:58 PM
man ron pauls an idiot....but be careful what you say... the Ron Paul googling force will send you hatemail.
Snoshi
12-08-2007, 02:01 PM
OMG! He wants legalize drugs just because he belives in persoanl freedom "personal" freedom?
Isn't prostitution already legal in some US states?
(Not to mention that, as I recall it, prostitution in front of a camera is legal in all states due to a supreme court ruling)
LaoSexMachine
12-08-2007, 02:08 PM
Fighting the drug "war" is like pissing in the wind. Seems to me all he wants to do is give states more power to decide what is best for them. Doubt any US state would legalise drugs anyways.
A breath of fresh air to say the least in American politics.
Isn't prostitution already legal in some US states?
(Not to mention that, as I recall it, prostitution in front of a camera is legal in all states due to a supreme court ruling)
Don't think this is right. First off prostitution in front of a camera might be more than prostitution (like "acting" in an adult film) but that wouldn't necessarily make it protected speech. States, cities, counties are all free to outlaw prostitution and the filming of adult films. It is legal to make adult films in many places but illegal in more places.
I think there are a few isolated places where prostitution is legal but in the cast majority of the US it is verboten.
hank
man ron pauls an idiot....but be careful what you say... the Ron Paul googling force will send you hatemail.
care to point out what is idiotic?
Mr.Flint
12-08-2007, 02:29 PM
He is for personal freedoms, for legalizing drugs and prostitution, yet he is against abortions?!
Do i smell hypocrisy?
NuclearHead
12-08-2007, 02:33 PM
What can I say...I agree. I want the government out of our personal lives.
He is for personal freedoms, for legalizing drugs and prostitution, yet he is against abortions?!
Do i smell hypocrisy?
He doesn't want the Federal government involved in abortion. He thinks it should be left to the states to decide on this. Even though he's strongly pro-life, he won't let this cloud his judgment.
I personally don't like abortion either, I don't see it as a matter of choice, but more as a matter of whether or not to kill a human being.
The problem with all this is that as President Paul won't be able to do much about this. The damage is done. Many of the laws he decries are already passed and have been upheld by the courts. Maybe some of you Paul supporters can explain to me how he will accomplich most of this as President. I'm not being a smartass, I just don't understand the mechanism by which he will implement a lot of this rhetoric.
hank
Snoshi
12-08-2007, 02:48 PM
He is for personal freedoms, for legalizing drugs and prostitution, yet he is against abortions?!
Do i smell hypocrisy?
Yeah sounds like he belives that abortions are evil and kill, while drugs dont!! :roll:
NuclearHead
12-08-2007, 02:54 PM
The problem with all this is that as President Paul won't be able to do much about this. The damage is done. Many of the laws he decries are already passed and have been upheld by the courts. Maybe some of you Paul supporters can explain to me how he will accomplich most of this as President. I'm not being a smartass, I just don't understand the mechanism by which he will implement a lot of this rhetoric.
hank
The answer is he won't be able to accomplish everything he says. He himself has said it. But as president he will be in a much better position to influence the course that our country takes.
Yeah sounds like he belives that abortions are evil and kill, while drugs dont!! :roll:
First of all Snoshi, he is personally against abortion, but he doesn't want the Federal government involved; as such he won't impose his view on anyone, he'd let each state decide. What's wrong with that?
That pretty much just destroys your argument.
shocker1
12-08-2007, 02:56 PM
He is for personal freedoms, for legalizing drugs and prostitution, yet he is against abortions?!
Do i smell hypocrisy?
Yes aborting babies is a moral equivalent to smoking weed. Dr. Paul is an Ob/gyn that delivers babies and is a Christian so morally he is against all these things but from a Constitutional POV which he claims. The states should have the rights to any issue not specifically covered in the constitution. As the document itself says rights not granted herein belong to the States or the People.
Hank, I would not expect a Pres. Paul to make all these sweeping changes. Anymore than the promises of any politician. However he is obviously speaking from what he truly thinks. I agree with most of his limited Fed point of view. To me he would at least make the Washington establishment think twice before conducting themselves poor manner making our laws and spending our money. It is clear how he would shake it up and that is what we need. No other Candidate even comes close and as a student of history. I would have to say his views closely mirror what most of the Founders wanted.
I have some rubs with his defense views but I trust his selections for a Cabinet if elected. Presidents of all stripes seem to become more hawkish in that regard after being elected. On Iraq if we still have the huge footprint there in 2009 when the reins of power change hands. then it is time to go no matter who we elect. just my opinion though. His domestic policies are what I care most about.
The answer is he won't be able to accomplish everything he says. He himself has said it. But as president he will be in a much better position to influence the course that our country takes.
How? If these laws he complains of are already on the books and have been held constitutional then what will he do?
I know he can't do it all, that would be unrealistic. I just fail to see how the chief executive can effect change in these areas. What does Paul say about this?
hank
NuclearHead
12-08-2007, 02:59 PM
The states should have the rights to any issue not specifically covered in the constitution. As the document itself says rights not granted herein belong to the States or the People.
Correct. Too bad some people don't seem to care about the Constitution anymore.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
US Constitution 10th Amendment.
Yes aborting babies is a moral equivalent to smoking weed. Dr. Paul is an Ob/gyn that delivers babies and is a Christian so morally he is against all these things but from a Constitutional POV which he claims. The states should have the rights to any issue not specifically covered in the constitution. As the document itself says rights not granted herein belong to the States or the People.
Hank, I would not expect a Pres. Paul to make all these sweeping changes. Anymore than the promises of any politician. However he is obviously speaking from what he truly thinks. I agree with most of his limited Fed point of view. To me he would at least make the Washington establishment think twice before conducting themselves poor manner making our laws and spending our money. It is clear how he would shake it up and that is what we need. No other Candidate even comes close and as a student of history. I would have to say his views closely mirror what most of the Founders wanted.
I have some rubs with his defense views but I trust his selections for a Cabinet if elected. Presidents of all stripes seem to become more hawkish in that regard after being elected. On Iraq if we still have the huge footprint there in 2009 when the reins of power change hands. then it is time to go no matter who we elect. just my opinion though. His domestic polices are what I care most about.
I must not be doing a good job of explaining my question. I am not questioning his conviction or his motivation. I am saying as an executive who implements the laws how will he accomplish a lot of these goals? For example, with respect to prostitution. First off I don't see a lot of fed LEO enforcement of this. But how will he force states to change their current laws or enforcement.
Drugs is a better example. Congress has already made trafficking illegal. Unless Congress changes the law what will Paul do? I understand that he can propose legislation but what if its not implemented? Will he refuse to enforce the laws on the books? Seems like his policies are best implemented in a legislator.
Just my thoughts.
hank
NuclearHead
12-08-2007, 03:06 PM
How? If these laws he complains of are already on the books and have been held constitutional then what will he do?
I know he can't do it all, that would be unrealistic. I just fail to see how the chief executive can effect change in these areas. What does Paul say about this?
hank
The President has a lot of leverage on the bills that get passed. He has a veto power and he has a lot of influence when it comes to passing bills.
Mr.Flint
12-08-2007, 03:14 PM
Yes aborting babies is a moral equivalent to smoking weed. Dr. Paul is an Ob/gyn that delivers babies and is a Christian so morally he is against all these things but from a Constitutional POV which he claims. The states should have the rights to any issue not specifically covered in the constitution. As the document itself says rights not granted herein belong to the States or the People.
moral equivalent to smoking weed? certainly not, but cocain and heroin? absolutely yes.
Note: he would be a figure to look at for any state that will want to criminalize abortions. "Ze prezident doesnt like abortions, so you tiny minority that wants legal abortions just STFU and scram, we will enact whatever laws we like."
now, tell me, what would happen in this hypothetical, 100% constitutional, situation where, a certain state legalizes hard drugs but criminalizes abortions?
NuclearHead
12-08-2007, 03:19 PM
Note: he would be a figure to look at for any state that will want to criminalize abortions. "Ze prezident doesnt like abortions, so you tiny minority that wants legal abortions just STFU and scram, we will enact whatever laws we like."
He doesn't want the Federal involved in abortion. Meaning that he wouldn't impose his views on anyone. Can you at least understand that?
now, tell me, what would happen in this hypothetical, 100% constitutional, situation where, a certain state legalizes hard drugs but criminalizes abortions?
Then the people of that state have spoken. You have a problem with that?
shocker1
12-08-2007, 03:24 PM
He is talking about the Federal Government legislating morality and vice. As far as I know any state can legalize a regulated form of Prostitution if they wanted. I know of no Federal statutes maybe somebody does. Weed should be the same but not the hard stuff as he says. However that is not a factor for me not to vote for him. I would be more concerned with his views on military funding which I think would change very quick. This too is not a deciding factor for me. Letting fear of foreigners make me vote for the most sensitive trigger man is not my idea of what I should be voting on.
In this 100% Constitutional world of his. What state would legalize hard drugs that would attract that sort to the State? I would be against such as most would and the States would act more democratically than the career Senators and Reps in DC. Sure weed would be the most likely form legalized as it should be. Yes I said it, in this country where you have liquor ads on TV but by God don't smoke a Camel on channel 3 or resurrect a Good ole Marlboro ad. Craziness, but that is a whole thread already worn. I want Paul in there as a thermostat to turn down the already too powerful federal government.
Mr.Flint
12-08-2007, 03:27 PM
He doesn't want the Federal involved in abortion. Meaning that he wouldn't impose his views on anyone. Can you at least understand that?
I meant the state.
Then the people of that state have spoken. You have a problem with that?
I do have a problem, because the picture i get, is that a minority is being stripped of its rights by a majority.
What will be next? forced segregation? polygamy? Forced sterilizations?
(I would appreciate if some one can show me quotes from the Constitution that allow/prohibit one of the above)
also, im sure you would enjoy living in a state that having a population boom due to a high birth rate, but with one small problem - most of these children (since their mommies and daddies will be hard drugs addicts) will have various levels of disabilities and as such will be welfare recipients... welcome back to the welfare state....
nagant_m44
12-08-2007, 03:34 PM
I meant the state.
I do have a problem, because the picture i get, is that a minority is being stripped of its rights by a majority.
What will be next? forced segregation? polygamy? Forced sterilizations?
also, im sure you would enjoy living in a state that having a population boom due to a high birth rate, but with one small problem - most of these children (since their mommies and daddies will be hard drugs addicts) will have various levels of disabilities and as such will be welfare recipients... welcome back to the welfare state....
the slope you have hit, sir, is indeed slippery.
Mr.Flint
12-08-2007, 03:40 PM
there is a certain irony in the advert shown when a browsed the thread... i chuckled.
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mr_flint/th_05ac3621.jpg (http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mr_flint/05ac3621.jpg)
NuclearHead
12-08-2007, 03:52 PM
I do have a problem, because the picture i get, is that a minority is being stripped of its rights by a majority.
What will be next? forced segregation? polygamy? Forced sterilizations?
(I would appreciate if some one can show me quotes from the Constitution that allow/prohibit one of the above).
So, you think the minority's rights are being stripped when you let the states decide and not the Federal government? That doesn't make any sense.
nagant_m44
12-08-2007, 03:55 PM
So, you think the minority's rights are being stripped when you let the states decide and not the Federal government? That doesn't make any sense.
he cant answer, he fell off a slippery slope:)
Mr.Flint
12-08-2007, 04:03 PM
So, you think the minority's rights are being stripped when you let the states decide and not the Federal government? That doesn't make any sense.
It does make sense, the Federal Government acts as a body that guarantees (well, in theory :roll: ) that these minorities are not being stripped of their rights.
And note, i do not say that minority rights being stripped if states decide on their own, im saying that there is a distinct possibility for that...
Dont you have a state or a number of these that, consider anal *** as a crime? :cantbeli: rofl
If im wrong, please show me the relevant quotes from the Constitution that clearly state that such situations as i described, cannot happen.
Shellshock1918
12-08-2007, 07:40 PM
care to point out what is idiotic?
Be prepared to wait a while.
usa320
12-08-2007, 09:13 PM
What can I say...I agree. I want the government out of our personal lives.
He doesn't want the Federal government involved in abortion. He thinks it should be left to the states to decide on this. Even though he's strongly pro-life, he won't let this cloud his judgment.
I personally don't like abortion either, I don't see it as a matter of choice, but more as a matter of whether or not to kill a human being.
Drugs arent our personal lives when the sale of them is the cause of a massive percent of violent crime. Drug use isnt affecting only people's personal lives, its affecting (and in some cases endangering) the lives of everyone in their community. To paraphrase Reagan, drug addiction goes against everything that America stands for. Paul is an idiot for suggesting it should become an acceptable part of society, though, in some regards, at least popularly amongst the youth, perhaps it has. Lets find a candidate who promises to get federal law enforcement involved to a larger extent in helping local anti-drug efforts, lets find a candidate who is going to commit serious resources to stopping drug trade before it gets within our borders, and there is a candidate i will back.
Want to get the government out of people's personal lives? Fine. Lets start by stopping government hand outs for those that are too lazy to work.
Honestly, part of me believes this is just political manuevering by Paul to capture the vote of the "pothead 20 something" demographic.
That being said, i hope everyone that plans to vote for Mr. Paul realizes that anything he proposes has to pass through congress... So the possibility of having a Lame duck president very early on in his presidency is very real if he keeps throwing out ideas like this.
NuclearHead
12-08-2007, 09:54 PM
Drugs arent our personal lives when the sale of them is the cause of a massive percent of violent crime. Drug use isnt affecting only people's personal lives, its affecting (and in some cases endangering) the lives of everyone in their community.
Throwing a sick man in jail for smoking marijuana affects more the community that letting that man get some pain relief.
Lets find a candidate who promises to get federal law enforcement involved to a larger extent in helping local anti-drug efforts, lets find a candidate who is going to commit serious resources to stopping drug trade before it gets within our borders, and there is a candidate i will back.
Hasn't that been the policy for the last 50 years? I mean, have you seen how much resources we spend on the "war on drugs." Seeing the results of that policy, I wouldn't say it has worked very well. Basic economics explains why. As long as there is a demand, there will always be a supplier.
Want to get the government out of people's personal lives? Fine. Lets start by stopping government hand outs for those that are too lazy to work.
I agree. That's why I support Ron Paul. He's strongly against the welfare state and against taxation. He favors the abolition of the IRS and the income tax.
Beowulf
12-09-2007, 01:35 AM
To all: Make sure you keep your comments constructive.
If you want to be clever do it in OT&H.
Single line posts consisting of only a sarcastic comment contribute nothing to the discussion.
Snoshi
12-09-2007, 04:59 AM
Letting some states to legalize drugs will just create more problems for the USA.. Lets say that one states votes to legalize the hard drugs while states around vote against.. So what will we get? All the people from neighbouring states will go to the state that legalized drugs to get and take them back to use them or sell them in their own state.
How is this good?
And again why haven't anyone answered Mr.Flints post?
Shadowstorm
12-09-2007, 06:23 AM
Letting some states to legalize drugs will just create more problems for the USA.. Lets say that one states votes to legalize the hard drugs while states around vote against.. So what will we get? All the people from neighbouring states will go to the state that legalized drugs to get and take them back to use them or sell them in their own state.
How is this good?
And again why haven't anyone answered Mr.Flints post?
I agree with their. It would do more harm than good.
Shadowstorm
12-09-2007, 07:31 AM
I agree. That's why I support Ron Paul. He's strongly against the welfare state and against taxation. He favors the abolition of the IRS and the income tax.
I agree their's a lot of lazy people in the America who don't want to work. But their are a lot people who can't work, because their either disabled, like with health issues, children, senior citizens (even though their are a few are working and even with people are working, they are getting paid under the minimum wage, you can't really get by if your making around $500-$600 a month when bills are higher then that. So thats why we got welfare and social security, because a lot people can't get by themselves.
Lt. James Anderson
12-09-2007, 06:57 PM
I agree their's a lot of lazy people in the America who don't want to work. But their are a lot people who can't work, because their either disabled, like with health issues, children, senior citizens (even though their are a few are working and even with people are working, they are getting paid under the minimum wage, you can't really get by if your making around $500-$600 a month when bills are higher then that. So thats why we got welfare and social security, because a lot people can't get by themselves.
And a lot more abuse it. On every legitimate recepient, there are five or ten more who are not. Same thing in the work place ... half works hard the other half slacks off ... but everybofy gets paid the same (because "we are all equal" - Marx said so).
Best man for the job was what America was known for, but no longer, now it's all about equality and feelings ...
Rictor
12-09-2007, 11:14 PM
Letting some states to legalize drugs will just create more problems for the USA.. Lets say that one states votes to legalize the hard drugs while states around vote against.. So what will we get? All the people from neighbouring states will go to the state that legalized drugs to get and take them back to use them or sell them in their own state.
How is this good?
And again why haven't anyone answered Mr.Flints post?
And that would result in what? Let's say that Texas legalizes cocaine and New Mexico doesn't. By your arguement, dealers from New Mexico would just go to Texas, buy drugs and smuggle them back. And that would flood New Mexico with cocaine.
...except that New Mexico, and every other state, already is flooded with every sort of drug in vast quantities. It would be no more or less difficult to buy drugs than it already is. So there would be no real change for those states that choose to keep them illegal, since it's already a worst-case scenario right now.
I would also like to hear your case for telling grown adults what they can and can't put in their body. How does that jive with personal liberty and choice? As long as I hurt no one else, I should be able to drink, smoke or inject anything I want.
Snoshi
12-10-2007, 02:17 AM
And that would result in what? Let's say that Texas legalizes cocaine and New Mexico doesn't. By your arguement, dealers from New Mexico would just go to Texas, buy drugs and smuggle them back. And that would flood New Mexico with cocaine.
...except that New Mexico, and every other state, already is flooded with every sort of drug in vast quantities. It would be no more or less difficult to buy drugs than it already is. So there would be no real change for those states that choose to keep them illegal, since it's already a worst-case scenario right now.
I would also like to hear your case for telling grown adults what they can and can't put in their body. How does that jive with personal liberty and choice? As long as I hurt no one else, I should be able to drink, smoke or inject anything I want.
So it would not bother you that there will be one state in the USA that will spread the drugs to other states and when they police will try to crack down then they wont be able to because all the dealers live in a state where its legal to own heroin..
And saying that "what does it matter, the streets of full of heroin" is wrong logic.
Look, i have no problem with people drinking or ejecting anything at private as long as he leaves me or anyone else alone, but that's not the case. Drugs create criminals, they create poverty. And its the tax payers that pay for it, even if he goes to jail the taxpayers will have to pay for the junkie.
Isnt that what Ron Paul is trying to "remove" the hole welfare stuff=
Rictor
12-10-2007, 02:26 AM
No, it's not faulty logic. If $500,000,000,000 (roughly), 20 years of tough enforcement and something like a million people in jail for drug offences has not created the tiniest dent in drug proliferation, I think it's safe to say that any other approach could not possibly create a worse scenario. What I mean is that anyone who wants to buy drugs already can, and legalizing it would not make acquiring drugs substantially easier or harder.
Drugs create criminals the same way that guns create murderers - they don't. If someone commits a crime as a result of say, using heroin, then punish the crime. Grown people can and should take responsibilities for their actions. If I personally can take acid every day and not harm anyone but myself, I should be allowed to.
Snoshi
12-10-2007, 02:46 AM
No, it's not faulty logic. If $500,000,000,000 (roughly), 20 years of tough enforcement and something like a million people in jail for drug offences has not created the tiniest dent in drug proliferation, I think it's safe to say that any other approach could not possibly create a worse scenario. What I mean is that anyone who wants to buy drugs already can, and legalizing it would not make acquiring drugs substantially easier or harder.
Drugs create criminals the same way that guns create murderers - they don't. If someone commits a crime as a result of say, using heroin, then punish the crime. Grown people can and should take responsibilities for their actions. If I personally can take acid every day and not harm anyone but myself, I should be allowed to.
So by legalizing it in some states what will be achieved? The state will just become a "launching" pod for drug dealers and drug barons from different countries. I am not saying that winning the war on drugs is very possible, but legalizing drugs in some states will just do the opposite and it may create more junkies.
Comparing guns and drugs does not make any sense. Most people with a gun are sane people that knows how to use. While people who are out of money and are addicted to heroin are crazy junkies that will do anything to get a rush.
And how can we judge who can use drugs and not cause harms to others or to the state? Is there some test that can tell us that? No..
Personal freedom is good. But when it goes over to anarchy then its starting to be a problem.
ren0312
12-10-2007, 04:09 AM
Ron Paul Unplugged
John Stossel Interviews Republican on Personal Freedom, Drugs, Prostitution and Gay Marriage
By JOHN STOSSEL and GENA BINKLEY
Dec. 7, 2007 —
Over the last few months, I've received hundreds of e-mails from people who wanted me to interview the unconventional Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3745767&page=1). So this week I did.
In our hour-long interview, Paul and I discussed illegal immigration, the Iraq War, when war is necessary, the proper role of government, health care, drug laws, prostitution and more.
Despite relatively low poll numbers (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=3953614&page=1), Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That's in part because he's raised a ton of money (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/paul-raises-jaw.html), and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It's one reason we're posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active. In fact, he's the most Googled presidential candidate (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3965657&page=1).
Next week, ABCNEWS.com will post five additional video segments and articles from the interview.
On Monday, we'll examine the role of government -- what the federal government should and shouldn't do. Tuesday, Paul gives his views on when war is justifiable. On Wednesday we'll tackle immigration. Like many of his GOP colleagues, Paul opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants and wants more border enforcement. But he says the real problem lies with birthright citizenship and other enticements of the American welfare state. On Thursday we discuss health care, and on Friday, we'll discuss one of the Texas congressman's favorite topics, the Constitution.
But first up, here's a preview of one topic: drugs and prostitution.
Legalize Drugs and Prostitution?
In the interview, we discussed prostitution, drug use and gay marriage. Paul says these are not things that the federal government should try to control.
"I think the government's role should not be involved in personal habits. When you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms . . .whether it's personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice," Paul asserted.
He believes the constitution says such issues should be left to the states to decide, and if a state chooses to legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin and/or prostitution, so be it.
"I would get the government out of regulating all those substances," Paul said. "I think the government's role should not be involved in personal habits. I believe those rules should protect children who are below the age of making good judgments. So, I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs."
Paul also told me that marijuana, cocaine and heroin should be legal in states that choose to permit it; he feels the same way about prostitution.
"I would get the government out of regulating all those substances," Paul said. "I believe those rules should protect children who are below the age of making good judgments. So, I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs."
And what about prostitution?
"If (people) do things that you don't like and you might find morally repugnant, I, as an individual, I don't make that judgment. So, I don't believe government can legislate virtue," said Paul.
War on Drugs
Paul disapproves of the government's war on drugs.
"It's tragic," he told me in our hourlong interview, 'matter of fact, I think the war on drugs. . . has caused the price of drugs to go up."
Paul said we shouldn't treat addicts as criminals.
"We treat 'em as criminals rather than sick people, we have pushed a lot of people into prostitution. So prostitution is related to the mistakes we've made in the drug war."
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=3970423&page=1
So he wants to make meth legal? Nice move.:roll:
Lokos
12-10-2007, 07:26 AM
So he wants to make meth legal? Nice move
What is your agenda, I wonder? The article clearly has him saying that he wants to leave such legislation to state-level legislative bodies. If state governments want meth to be legal, then so be it, is the gist of the message...
Lokos
Snoshi
12-10-2007, 07:28 AM
What is your agenda, I wonder? The article clearly has him saying that he wants to leave such legislation to state-level legislative bodies. If state governments want meth to be legal, then so be it, is the gist of the message...
Lokos
But he wont oppose it..
But he wont oppose it..
Because he doesn't believe in the federal gorvernment meddling in the state's affairs. I don't what's so hard to get about that? It's a matter of principle, which he truly embodies.
Shadowstorm
12-10-2007, 08:22 AM
Ron Paul, like Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan before him had their extreme views and ideas what to do for this country had lost the election for the presidency and Ron Paul will be one of them.
Lt. James Anderson
12-10-2007, 08:58 AM
Ron Paul, like Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan before him had their extreme views and ideas what to do for this country had lost the election for the presidency and Ron Paul will be one of them.
So believing in the Constitution and the principles which this country was founded on qualifies as "extreme views and ideas"? Just use your brain, please. Of course it is "extreme" compared to (communist BS) what's been going on in this country for a couple of decades ...
Shadowstorm
12-10-2007, 09:25 AM
I'm using brain and I'm definitely not a f**king communist you fool. So going around talking about making making drugs legal make this country better, please giving me a f**king break. Man, I seen what drugs do to people and is not a pertty site. And making it legal would do more harm than good.
Buckeye67
12-10-2007, 09:42 AM
(I realize that my time would probably be better spent finding a brick wall and banging my head against it, but the masochistic streak in me compels me to reply to this thread.)
I defy you to show me where Ron Paul has said that "making drugs legal make this country better", or anything of the sort.
Allowing state governments, which are more accountable to the people who live in them than the federal government will ever be, to make those types of decisions is not "LOL HAY GUYZ LOL LETZ MAKE DRUGS LEGAL LOL".
You do understand the concept that the lower the echelon of government, the more accountable it is to its constituents, yes? Because if you don't, then there's really no more point in discussing this.
Lt. James Anderson
12-10-2007, 09:46 AM
Re-read the article ... His point wasn't about legalizing drugs and prostitution, but something else.
Shadowstorm
12-10-2007, 10:23 AM
(I realize that my time would probably be better spent finding a brick wall and banging my head against it, but the masochistic streak in me compels me to reply to this thread.)
I defy you to show me where Ron Paul has said that "making drugs legal make this country better", or anything of the sort.
Allowing state governments, which are more accountable to the people who live in them than the federal government will ever be, to make those types of decisions is not "LOL HAY GUYZ LOL LETZ MAKE DRUGS LEGAL LOL".
You do understand the concept that the lower the echelon of government, the more accountable it is to its constituents, yes? Because if you don't, then there's really no more point in discussing this.
The goverment should do a lot to enforce the law to stop these damn drugs and I for one thing don't support any legalizing of any drugs and I also support the War on Drugs and if a president is planning to make drugs legal and the same with governor if he or she was planning to make drugs legal in my state, they won't be getting my vote.
The President has a lot of leverage on the bills that get passed. He has a veto power and he has a lot of influence when it comes to passing bills.
Really? I understand that, what I am asking is this: If Paul's views are not accepted by most Sanators (and they are not I think we can agree) then how will he get this stuff done at a practical level?
I know he proposes legislation but proposing doesn't = implementing. I know he can veto but he can't accomplish anything with veto, he can only stop. Many of the things he decries have already been found constitutional. With all that in mind what will he do?
I'm not disagreeing with him. In fact I agree with a lot of his positions (expecially his position on the 10th Amendment). I'm simply being practical and asking, in the current landscape, how can an executive do a lot of this?
I am happy for you to respond but I was hoping some of the more intellecutally-minded Ron Paul supporters would weigh in. He probably has a well thought-out answer to this problem that I am simply not aware of. I'm not being antagonistic, this is a serious question.
It seems to me that Ron Paul is a little bit removed from reality, not that it diminishes what he is trying to accomplish. I'm just not convinced that many of the changes he advocates are realistically implemented.
hank
shocker1
12-10-2007, 10:47 AM
I'm not disagreeing with him. In fact I agree with a lot of his positions (expecially his position on the 10th Amendment). I'm simply being practical and asking, in the current landscape, how can an executive do a lot of this?
I am happy for you to respond but I was hoping some of the more intellecutally-minded Ron Paul supporters would weigh in. He probably has a well thought-out answer to this problem that I am simply not aware of. I'm not being antagonistic, this is a serious question.
I support Ron Paul because he does represent the view that more closely mirrors the original intent than anyone else. Of course as you say his policies would be hard to get through. The IRS, Federal Reserve and such will meet a tough fight with bankers who do contol our money. I see his proposed Presidency as a spot light upon the real issues of this country. Change will happen and actions once hidden will be in view for all to see and the shame will flow.
It is my opinion we are heading in the wrong direction with so many international issues, domestic issues, overbearing central government that we must vote for Dr. Paul. It is the only way to really get our Reps on the Hill to own up to what has been transpiring for the past 30 years. He would cut the grip of the "think tanks" on American Policy and bring it back to the will of the people. As far as drugs and vice it should be a state issue where leaders of the state gov make policy.
I support Ron Paul because he does represent the view that more closely mirrors the original intent than anyone else. Of course as you say his policies would be hard to get through. The IRS, Federal Reserve and such will meet a tough fight with bankers who do contol our money. I see his proposed Presidency as a spot light upon the real issues of this country. Change will happen and actions once hidden will be in view for all to see and the shame will flow.
It is my opinion we are heading in the wrong direction with so many international issues, domestic issues, overbearing central government that we must vote for Dr. Paul. It is the only way to really get our Reps on the Hill to own up to what has been transpiring for the past 30 years. He would cut the grip of the "think tanks" on American Policy and bring it back to the will of the people. As far as drugs and vice it should be a state issue where leaders of the state gov make policy.
I am with you on all of that, does Paul address the fact that so much of what he (and I) disagree with would not be changeable unless the legislative and judicial branches were on board as well? He may not address that but it seems to me he should. I'm not trying to be disagreeable about this, I am genuinely curious. The problem is that the 10th Amendment has been ignored for so long it will be hard to make hte necessary changes to give it the "bite" it reightfully deserves.
hank
Shellshock1918
12-10-2007, 11:27 AM
I am with you on all of that, does Paul address the fact that so much of what he (and I) disagree with would not be changeable unless the legislative and judicial branches were on board as well? He may not address that but it seems to me he should. I'm not trying to be disagreeable about this, I am genuinely curious. The problem is that the 10th Amendment has been ignored for so long it will be hard to make hte necessary changes to give it the "bite" it reightfully deserves.
hank
If he were to get elected that would be a mandate to government to change their actions.
shocker1
12-10-2007, 11:27 AM
Well if we do not start electing people who take stands on issues in a way we agree with then what are we doing? His stand on the issues has already changed the political winds. Being discouraged by the difficulty of the situation will only exasperate the problems we face IMO. His Presidency would be marked by a DECREASE in the power of the Executive. That is what he wants, it is what I want and it is what this nation needs.
To the end you are concerned with Hank, it would seem our responsibility as a people to elect reps who do their job inline with their constituents.
NuclearHead
12-10-2007, 11:43 AM
What is your agenda, I wonder? The article clearly has him saying that he wants to leave such legislation to state-level legislative bodies. If state governments want meth to be legal, then so be it, is the gist of the message...
Lokos
That doesn't automatically mean he wants to legalize meth. If a state wants to do that, then that's the state's problem. If it wants to criminalize it, same thing. He never stated that he wants the Federal government to legalize it; something which in my opinion would be unwise.
Really? I understand that, what I am asking is this: If Paul's views are not accepted by most Sanators (and they are not I think we can agree) then how will he get this stuff done at a practical level?
He won't be able to. A president doesn't always get what he wants, that's the whole point of the checks and balances system. I really don't see what else you want to hear from me. If you listen what his campaign manager says at 1:50, he says exactly what I've been telling you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wo7G6j6bi4
Here's Ron Paul talking about the issue back in 1988:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
ed316
12-10-2007, 11:59 AM
At least he is clear about his position. Unlike most of the candidate who is running for the job. I'll vote for him.
SupportTheTroops_5
12-10-2007, 12:13 PM
Doubt any US state would legalise drugs anyways.
Most wouldn't, i think. But i think states like Massachussets(spelling?) and California would legalize anything if they could.
If he were to get elected that would be a mandate to government to change their actions.
Dude, I am really not trying to be obtuse but think about this statement. Was Bush a mandate for a democratic Congress to do what Bush wanted? That kind of statement isn't helpful and in no way answers my question. Conversely, was Clinton a mandate to the Republicans? No. In every case Democrats will toe the line as will Republicans. They alwasy have and they always will.
What will Paul do to get a legislature that disagrees with him and a judiciary that has already taken positions contrary to him to change their course?
Shocker, I understand your point about our responsibility. I am afraid that a guy like Paul will be ineffective in achieving his goals becasue of the broad change he wants to implement. That might be a good thing because the status quo seems to disregard the con when it wants and lean on it when it fits their agenda. I really was more interested in what Paul says about this. I cannot be the only guy in the world asking these questions. How does Paul answer them?
hank
He won't be able to. A president doesn't always get what he wants, that's the whole point of the checks and balances system. I really don't see what else you want to hear from me. If you listen what his campaign manager says at 1:50, he says exactly what I've been telling you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wo7G6j6bi4
Here's Ron Paul talking about the issue back in 1988:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
Thanks for the lesson on checks and balances. Helpful. I am going to listen to these before I respond to this one.
hank
Zoomie
12-10-2007, 12:44 PM
If he were to get elected that would be a mandate to government to change their actions.
You mean just like election of the Dems to the Senate was mandate to government to change their actions as well?
shocker1
12-10-2007, 01:22 PM
Shocker, I understand your point about our responsibility. I am afraid that a guy like Paul will be ineffective in achieving his goals becasue of the broad change he wants to implement. That might be a good thing because the status quo seems to disregard the con when it wants and lean on it when it fits their agenda. I really was more interested in what Paul says about this. I cannot be the only guy in the world asking these questions. How does Paul answer them?
hank
So what would constitute an achievable goal? One that does not rock the DC boat? I tend to vote on whether a candidate represents my political views the best. I do not base my voting on whether my political goals and that of my candidate will appease the pack and be easy to implement. I am against the baby step method in this case.
So what would constitute an achievable goal? One that does not rock the DC boat? I tend to vote on whether a candidate represents my political views the best. I do not base my voting on whether my political goals and that of my candidate will appease the pack and be easy to implement. I am against the baby step method in this case.
Not at all. No one's politcal goals are ever completely achieveable as President. It just seems like he is the most vulnerable to getting nothing done do to the DC status quo. I thought he probably had some means to address this issue. I haven't had a chance to watch those videos yet that other dude sent. I'll watch them tonight.
hank
shocker1
12-10-2007, 01:41 PM
It just seems like he is the most vulnerable to getting nothing done do to the DC status quo.
I understand what you are getting at and it is going to be tough. Congress has done jack in the past 8 years and with a bullhorn like Paul our Reps would be Johnny on the spot every time the WH had a presser. Look into Dr. Paul's questioning on the committees and such during his time in DC. If his words became headlines everyday the Congress would be constantly in defense and would have to work with him to get reelected. So much is hidden in the mountains of bureaucracy.
2Sheds_Jackson
12-10-2007, 02:04 PM
He is for personal freedoms, for legalizing drugs and prostitution, yet he is against abortions?!
Do i smell hypocrisy?
I don't think so- in his view, abortion infringes upon the rights of a second individual (i.e. the kid that winds up in the trash can).
While I do respect the fact that Paul is willing to put his unvarnished opinion out there - I think he's fairly close to being a kook. Not a Lyndon LaRouche kook, but a kook none the less.
This business of freedom of choice, and legislating virtue that Paul brings up - is just a straw man IMHO. All legislation has to do with limiting our freedom of choice. Therefore saying that we must not limit freedom of choice is an empty argument. The crux of the issue is where do we draw the line between the rights of the individual, and the rights of the community.
Does a person's right to do drugs override the community's right to be free of the behaviors that drug users engage in? Does a person's right to go to a hooker override the community's right to be free of the culture that grows up around prostitution? What happens to a conservative state that borders a more liberal one - when one only has to drive over the border to buy legal meth, and they drive back home with a trunk-load? Can both of those states remain within the same nation when their cultures will rapidly diverge?
I'm glad Paul is in the race, if for no other reason than to shake things up a bit - but dang...
shocker1
12-10-2007, 02:19 PM
Come on at least we could get mary jane on par with alcohol. Empty the jails of very hungry prisoners and help cancer patients of which I have been. I am not as extreme in my interpretation of personal freedoms as Ron Paul but most Americans would support regulating pot as we do booze.
Besides, no one else is even worth voting for. Hell he is the only guy who is not a fake IMO. McCain lost all respect from me in the last debate.
Rictor
12-10-2007, 07:11 PM
Does a person's right to do drugs override the community's right to be free of the behaviors that drug users engage in? Does a person's right to go to a hooker override the community's right to be free of the culture that grows up around prostitution?
There's no such thing as a community free of drugs and prostiution. It is, quite simply, impossible. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession, and can be found in every society. Drugs are the same way. Is it really hard to accept that there is no force short of death that will compel individuals to not engage in these activities, which they obviously find pleasurable? The legality is irrelevant.
Also, I wonder whether crime, poverty etc are results of drug usage itself or drug prohibition. Ending alcohol prohibition didn't create a society of drunken maniacs - the vast majority of people use alcohol recreationally and the few that don't get properly punished for whatever crimes they commit. Who says that drugs would be any different?
It just seems like he is the most vulnerable to getting nothing done do to the DC status quo.
There's a quote, and I wish I could remember who said it, that goes something like: "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
I would rather have Ron Paul trying to do good and failing than Mitt Romney or Rudy Guliani trying to do evil and succeeding.
There's a quote, and I wish I could remember who said it, that goes something like: "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
I would rather have Ron Paul trying to do good and failing than Mitt Romney or Rudy Guliani trying to do evil and succeeding.
Well that is laudible, but a President that spends all his time trying to do things that are unconstitutional under the current interpretation would be a problem. The other problem I see is that to accomplish a lot of what he wants to accomoplish he'd have to not enforce a great deal of legislation that is on the books right now. That is a big problem. I don't know that we would do that (not enforce) but it raises a host of issues.
I guess I feel about Paul a lot like i do about people who don't like the way a certain constitutional provision is interpreted. Once a provision is interpreted you need to change the provision to get a new interpretation. Paul almost needs a "do over" to get a lot of this stuff done. Maybe that is the answer, a new constitutional convention. That is also problematic. If he is serious about this stuff then he needs to recognize he can't likely implement his ideas without some drastic change.
No easy answers.
hank
Shellshock1918
12-10-2007, 11:08 PM
Dude, I am really not trying to be obtuse but think about this statement. Was Bush a mandate for a democratic Congress to do what Bush wanted?
hank
Paul will be a big departure and a totally different path than what has been going on during the past two presidencies. Paul's message of change is a stark contrast compared to everyone else's hollow promises. This is why the media ignores him, the people that own them have so much to lose by him winning.
Will Clark
12-11-2007, 09:07 AM
Drugs is a better example. Congress has already made trafficking illegal. Unless Congress changes the law what will Paul do? I understand that he can propose legislation but what if its not implemented? Will he refuse to enforce the laws on the books? Seems like his policies are best implemented in a legislator.
Just my thoughts.
hank
Lets say that RP sends a bill to congress to abolish the income tax, would you agree that the vast majority of Americans would support this? So congress can do one of two things, accept it, make the people happy, and continue to stay in office; or not pass it, piss off their constituents, and risk their incumbancy. Either way seems like a win to me. We could pass a bunch of bills I like or watch congressional approval fall into the single digits, if the incumbancy rate in congress drops below 50% I'll be a happy man. That is the beauty of a Ron Paul Administration.
Lets say that RP sends a bill to congress to abolish the income tax, would you agree that the vast majority of Americans would support this? So congress can do one of two things, accept it, make the people happy, and continue to stay in office; or not pass it, piss off their constituents, and risk their incumbancy. Either way seems like a win to me. We could pass a bunch of bills I like or watch congressional approval fall into the single digits, if the incumbancy rate in congress drops below 50% I'll be a happy man. That is the beauty of a Ron Paul Administration.
If you really think the vast majority of American support getting rid of income tax you are delusional. The vast majority of Americans have no idea we even have an income tax. Do you listen to Boortz?
hank
Will Clark
12-11-2007, 09:25 AM
Drugs arent our personal lives when the sale of them is the cause of a massive percent of violent crime. Drug use isnt affecting only people's personal lives, its affecting (and in some cases endangering) the lives of everyone in their community. To paraphrase Reagan, drug addiction goes against everything that America stands for. Paul is an idiot for suggesting it should become an acceptable part of society, though, in some regards, at least popularly amongst the youth, perhaps it has. Lets find a candidate who promises to get federal law enforcement involved to a larger extent in helping local anti-drug efforts, lets find a candidate who is going to commit serious resources to stopping drug trade before it gets within our borders, and there is a candidate i will back.
Want to get the government out of people's personal lives? Fine. Lets start by stopping government hand outs for those that are too lazy to work.
Honestly, part of me believes this is just political manuevering by Paul to capture the vote of the "pothead 20 something" demographic.
That being said, i hope everyone that plans to vote for Mr. Paul realizes that anything he proposes has to pass through congress... So the possibility of having a Lame duck president very early on in his presidency is very real if he keeps throwing out ideas like this.
Hi there, why do you think these violent drug problems exist? The friggan drug war. It created a blackmarket with a ***** load of cash to be made. Seriously, think of how many problems could be solved if we quit pushing our morality and just legalized/regulated it. Stop the drug war, let states regulate these drugs as we would any other. Then we would have safe drugs with appropriate doses, so those who wish to use it don't OD from taking more than they thought they were or end up in a coffin from some impurity. Then prices would plummet and it would become unprofitable for the blackmarket to exist. There goes violence related to drug sales. Back in the 70's they actually treated users instead of criminalizing them, and it was working. I've never so much as smoked a cigarette either, I like the concept free choice. If we did these things a slew of issues will be solved.
- Free up billions of dollars used to combat illegal drugs
- improve health through state regulation of drugs
- evaporate the black market
- curb violence from gangs who would profit from drug sales
- free up about a third of prisons, not to mention $$$ saved from that
- shrink fedgov, saving even more money
- state profits from taxes on drugs
If someone isn't responsible enough to control themselves then send them to rehab, not prison. If you're afraid of someone endangering your life...we already have laws against that.
Since the majority of representatives/senators will have to go through an election before he would be out of office, I'd love for them to stonewall ideas Americans like. Piss off the voters, lets lose some of those who wish to disregard those they represent.
Zoomie
12-11-2007, 09:31 AM
Hi there, why do you think these violent drug problems exist? The friggan drug war. It created a blackmarket with a ***** load of cash to be made. Seriously, think of how many problems could be solved if we quit pushing our morality and just legalized/regulated it.
What's next on your list of things we should stop pushing our morality on? Child ****?
I think it's very delusional to think that the regulation of illegal drugs would bring out the songbirds and rainbows, thus making America a happy place.
Will Clark
12-11-2007, 09:32 AM
If you really think the vast majority of American support getting rid of income tax you are delusional. The vast majority of Americans have no idea we even have an income tax. Do you listen to Boortz?
hank
You're saying Americans don't support keeping their money? Money that really doesn't need to be spent if the government would be responsible. If this isn't a sarcastic comment then its really sad. I'm pretty sure most Americans understand what they have to fill out and send to the government every year. Or what they're reminded of on every paycheck. I figured it out when I was 16, you can't tell me the average American doesn't understand that they pay a portion of their income to the federal government.
You're saying Americans don't support keeping their money? Money that really doesn't need to be spent if the government would be responsible. If this isn't a sarcastic comment then its really sad. I'm pretty sure most Americans understand what they have to fill out and send to the government every year. Or what they're reminded of on every paycheck. I figured it out when I was 16, you can't tell me the average American doesn't understand that they pay a portion of their income to the federal government.
Dude, I am saying that the American public is completely apathetic and have no idea about Ron Paul. Check out his numbers, they are low. Check out polls on tax. Americans don't know and don't care. They dislike taxes, yes, but they don't understand the mechanism by which they pay them. I guarantee you that if you poll people they will have no idea that they pay local, state, and federal taxes and all in different ways. That is just reality.
Tax is a word that people hate but don't know why they hate it. You can't impute your passion to the average American.
hank
shocker1
12-11-2007, 09:42 AM
America is doomed just vote for the flashy guy/unisex candidate that polls say will win. We are just dumb Americans and deserve what we get from our overlords. Average Americans do not need the facts, why the hell would they?
Will Clark
12-11-2007, 09:55 AM
What's next on your list of things we should stop pushing our morality on? Child ****?
I think it's very delusional to think that the regulation of illegal drugs would bring out the songbirds and rainbows, thus making America a happy place.
Right, because taking advantage of a minor is exactly the same as telling someone they can't do as they wish to their own body. What's next, I support murder because I don't like to push my morality on people? The whole concept is that you should be able to do as you wish so long as you aren't infringing on the rights of others. Doing drugs in your home passes this test, child ****ography does not.
Can you tell me I'm wrong on any count? Oh and I'm talking about legalization and regulation. We certainly aren't stopping anyone from doing drugs now are we? You're considered an oddball if you haven't smoked pot, I freakout at the thought of taking a polygraph because they'll think I'm lying. So we aren't stopping anyone, more people are dying due to unsafe drug use, addicts are sent to prison instead of rehab, we lose money and citizens by trying to combat a violent black market that would fall on its ass if we just regulated it, and the list goes on. You can win the drug war for the same reasons we realized prohibition was a bad idea.
I never said anything about holding hands across America and singing songs with each other if we legalized drugs. I feel that there will be a lot more addiction and maybe even deaths at first, people would flip out and do drugs just because they could. But things would settle down eventually. Rehab over prison showed promise in the 70's, try it again. And before you respond about an explosion of drug use ask yourself this, would you do drugs? I wouldn't, why should I assume everyone else will?
America is doomed just vote for the flashy guy/unisex candidate that polls say will win. We are just dumb Americans and deserve what we get from our overlords. Average Americans do not need the facts, why the hell would they?
You know I don't think that and I agree with a lot of what Paul wants to do. I'm just pointing out that the fundamental change he wants (as do I in a lot of respects) cannot happen only at the behest of a chief executive. Not that its not a lofty and worhty goal. But we have to be realistic, Paul can't accomplish very much of this. Raising awareness is good, but I'd like him to be mroe realistic about how to accomplish this.
hank
Will Clark
12-11-2007, 10:02 AM
Dude, I am saying that the American public is completely apathetic and have no idea about Ron Paul. Check out his numbers, they are low. Check out polls on tax. Americans don't know and don't care. They dislike taxes, yes, but they don't understand the mechanism by which they pay them. I guarantee you that if you poll people they will have no idea that they pay local, state, and federal taxes and all in different ways. That is just reality.
Tax is a word that people hate but don't know why they hate it. You can't impute your passion to the average American.
hank
I expect if you were referring to Ron Paul in that post you would of said "Americans don't know about Ron Paul" instead of "Americans don't know about Income Tax".
They might not understand the complexities of the tax code, but that doesn't matter. Just because it isn't a huge issue right now doesn't mean that it can't be made into one. You just said it, they don't like taxes. If the president says, "Hey gang, I wanna push this bill through congress to let you keep between 10 and 35 percent of your income that you would usually give us every year." It will get lots of attention, the people will want it. My passion is the same as anyone elses, I like to keep what I earn.
Will Clark
12-11-2007, 10:07 AM
You know I don't think that and I agree with a lot of what Paul wants to do. I'm just pointing out that the fundamental change he wants (as do I in a lot of respects) cannot happen only at the behest of a chief executive. Not that its not a lofty and worhty goal. But we have to be realistic, Paul can't accomplish very much of this. Raising awareness is good, but I'd like him to be mroe realistic about how to accomplish this.
hank
So long as he sticks to what Americans like either he will get a lot of stuff passed or there will be a lot of new bodies in the legislature. Either way its a win. Even if neither happened I still consider it a win, I'd rather have nothing happen than someone with socialist leanings trying to make a change.
shocker1
12-11-2007, 10:09 AM
Hank, if the man just made good on bringing issues to light then my vote was worth it. A vote for a candidate that is not in agreement with me just because the intimidation of the Czars in the Senate to railroad all that i think we should do is a sin against all those who helped give me that right to vote.
It is clear our national election is driven by a well oiled propaganda machine. Financed and controlled by a select few who have all the money one could want. It is that power over our system they hunger for. Population manipulation is a science and very effective. You are right about one thing Hank, the majority of Americans have no clue, are in denial or just do not care. I do not agree with all of Dr. Paul's ideas but he has few friends in DC, that is a major plus and has a stand on the principles of the Constitution that is spot on. I could not forgive with myself if I did not support him.
Hank, if the man just made good on bringing it to light then my vote was worth it. A vote for a candidate that is not in agreement with me just because the intimidation of the Czars in the Senate to railroad all that i think we should do is a sin against all those who helped give me that right to vote.
It is clear our national election is driven by a well oiled propaganda machine. Financed and controlled by a select few who have all the money one could want. It is that power over our system they hunger for. Population manipulation is a science and very effective. You are right about one thing Hank, the majority of Americans have no clue, are in denial or just do not care. I do not agree with all of Dr. Paul's ideas but he has few friends in DC, that is a major plus and has a stand on the principles of the Constitution that is spot on. I could not forgive with myself if I did not support him.
I must not be doing a godd job of explaining myself. I want you to support him, heck I might even support him myself. My one and only point is that I'd like to see him use his energy (which appears to be substantial) to come up with a comprehensive plan to implement this stuff. That plan would be a monumental task to be sure, but if the ideas are worth it, and I'm in agreement that they are, then I'd like to see him try to really implement them.
For example, it would probably take a constitutional convention. He has no plan for that. Why not? If I were him, I would have such a plan even if I didn't stump on that issue.
That's all I'm saying. If these ideas are so worthy and have so much support then let's do it, not just talk about it.
Heck, according to Will Clark the legilsature will bow at his feet due to the wide support. The sky's the limit, right? I'm being facetious now, but my point is the same. A guy this smart needs to have a plan to implement. Otherwise its just talk, which is what we get from the DC crew right now. I want more than that.
There are just so many road blocks to a lot of this (bureaucracy, judiciary, legislature) that he needs to address the mechanisma by which he will get around the road blocks.
hank
So long as he sticks to what Americans like either he will get a lot of stuff passed or there will be a lot of new bodies in the legislature. Either way its a win. Even if neither happened I still consider it a win, I'd rather have nothing happen than someone with socialist leanings trying to make a change.
Dude, if you believe this then you are not paying attention. Every President who has the House and Senate promises to get stuff done and nobody ever does. Paul won't have the House and Senate. It will be constant stalemate. And don't tell me that Paul's overwhelming support will carry the day because that doesn't work either.
hank
shocker1
12-11-2007, 10:24 AM
I know what you are saying. It does sound like you are trying your best to talk yourself out of it though. His mechanism is the definition of the Executive in the Constitution. If Americans need that explained as we really do our Nation is in trouble big time. No path to change is with out roadblocks but the path of least resistance is the path to an all powerful central government. IMO we are past the point of no return but I refuse to give up and comply.
I know what you are saying. It does sound like you are trying your best to talk yourself out of it though. His mechanism is the definition of the Executive in the Constitution. If Americans need that explained as the really do our Nation is in trouble big time. No path to change is with out roadblocks but the path of least resistance is the path to an all powerful central government. IMO we are past the point of no return but I refuse to give up and comply.
I won't vote for him but that doesn't mean I don't agree with him. The reality is that change like this will necessarily require more than a dedicated executive. It will take all branches and Paul alone can't do that, IMO.
hank
shocker1
12-11-2007, 10:39 AM
I won't vote for him but that doesn't mean I don't agree with him. The reality is that change like this will necessarily require more than a dedicated executive. It will take all branches and Paul alone can't do that, IMO.
hank
So we should just vote for the guy most likely to win? This makes no sense, if you agree with him regardless of how hard or impossible it seems then why would you vote for someone else? There has to be another issue that alarms you. Defense maybe? This is an area where I disagree with him on carrier forces and big budget top secret weapons. I have decided to base my vote on the Constitution not my fears. I have faith so let the chips fall where they may. In the end if he looses at least he has shifted the Republican Party a bit towards it's core principles.
So we should just vote for the guy most likely to win? This makes no sense, if you agree with him regardless of how hard or impossible it seems then why would you vote for someone else? There has to be another issue that alarms you. Defense maybe? This is an area where I disagree with him on carrier forces and big budget top secret weapons. I have decided to base my vote on the Constitution not my fears. I have faith so let the chips fall where they may. In the end if he looses at least he has shifted the Republican Party a bit towards it's core principles.
My approach to voting is to pick a candidate that I agree with on the whole. No candidate ever stands for evey position I do because I just don't fit. I don't agree with Paul on just as many issues as I disagree with W.
The situation I find myself in is that I don't believe any of them can (or will) do what they campaign about. So to me its kinds of a waste anyway. While I might agree that Paul is more likley to try to do what he says, the fact that I think he can't makes it hard for me to get excited. If W did what he said he would do he and I would get along fine. The problem I have with him is that he preaches conservatism but practices FDR democrat politics (spend as much as you can). So its lose lose for me.
I never let that discourage me from voting though.
I should also add that I didnt' vote for Perot for the same reason. I voted for HW x2, Dole, and W x2 in Presidential elections. In local I often don't have a Republican choice. In state elections I tend to vote Republican but often don't have a Republican candidate. As I said my problem is I don't believe any of them will do anything except do everything in their power to get reelected.
hank
shocker1
12-11-2007, 10:51 AM
Well I voted for Gore in 2000 because he was involved with the electric vehicle company I worked for. I have met him, ate a dinner with him and other snobs but I still voted for him for job sake. It is funny though, I agreed with Bush's 2000 stance on the UN and getting entangled in foreign issues like the Balkans. He lied but I voted for him in 2004 so what the hell? I voted for a label, Conservative but got a cheap Chinese knock off.
BTW Bush cut FTA alt transportation funding in 2001 and in 2001 my company went out of business. Go figure
Will Clark
12-11-2007, 10:52 AM
Dude, if you believe this then you are not paying attention. Every President who has the House and Senate promises to get stuff done and nobody ever does. Paul won't have the House and Senate. It will be constant stalemate. And don't tell me that Paul's overwhelming support will carry the day because that doesn't work either.
hank
Every president has been pretty much the same for many decades. Ron Paul is nothing like them because he actually believes in this stuff. Its important to him, not just pandering for votes. His flawless record and steadfast stances prove this. If this is all a huge scam to get us to vote for him then he sure fooled us, it was only 25 years in the making. It could be a stalemate, I'm not denying that. What I am saying is that if it is a stalemate and the issues are that important, then congress will be in the meatgrinder come election day. That's just how the politics of a congressional election works. Congressmen have to pander to interests for $$$ because they'll be facing well funded competitors, but if they choose interests or party politics over constituents too much they won't receive enough votes and will lose their seats. Lucky them people don't usually pay attention to the issues so they can get away with it, but go the wrong way on an issue people care about and its your ass. I don't recall her name, but there was a good case of a congresswoman from some northwestern state. There was a bill on the floor for a gas tax hike, the constituents in her district relied heavily on travel. It came down to an even split, it was all up to her. After an emotional conference with her democratic peers (and Clinton I believe) she voted with the party and gave them the win. Come next election she was handily defeated while the rest of congress enjoyed 97% incumbancy. No matter what happens the president is there for four years, get Americans pissed off about congress and the majority of them will be facing a tough reelection campaign. Crazy I know, but its completely possible.
Every president has been pretty much the same for many decades. Ron Paul is nothing like them because he actually believes in this stuff. Its important to him, not just pandering for votes. His flawless record and steadfast stances prove this. If this is all a huge scam to get us to vote for him then he sure fooled us, it was only 25 years in the making. It could be a stalemate, I'm not denying that. What I am saying is that if it is a stalemate and the issues are that important, then congress will be in the meatgrinder come election day. That's just how the politics of a congressional election works. Congressmen have to pander to interests for $$$ because they'll be facing well funded competitors, but if they choose interests or party politics over constituents too much they won't receive enough votes and will lose their seats. Lucky them people don't usually pay attention to the issues so they can get away with it, but go the wrong way on an issue people care about and its your ass. I don't recall her name, but there was a good case of a congresswoman from some northwestern state. There was a bill on the floor for a gas tax hike, the constituents in her district relied heavily on travel. It came down to an even split, it was all up to her. After an emotional conference with her democratic peers (and Clinton I believe) she voted with the party and gave them the win. Come next election she was handily defeated while the rest of congress enjoyed 97% incumbancy. No matter what happens the president is there for four years, get Americans pissed off about congress and the majority of them will be facing a tough reelection campaign. Crazy I know, but its completely possible.
I understand you on that and I agree. My point is that its really no different to me if someone can't or doesn't achieve his goals. Either way the goals aren't achieved.
hank
martinexsquaddie
12-11-2007, 11:53 AM
war on drugs was lost a long time agao
2Sheds_Jackson
12-11-2007, 02:40 PM
There's no such thing as a community free of drugs and prostiution. It is, quite simply, impossible. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession, and can be found in every society. Drugs are the same way. Is it really hard to accept that there is no force short of death that will compel individuals to not engage in these activities, which they obviously find pleasurable? The legality is irrelevant.
Rape and murder have also always existed - and people continue to do both regardless of the law. Using your logic, laws against them are also irrelevant?
The reality here is that the law does shape the behavior of 99% of citizens - but there is always the 1% that believe they do not have to conform.
Also, I wonder whether crime, poverty etc are results of drug usage itself or drug prohibition. Ending alcohol prohibition didn't create a society of drunken maniacs - the vast majority of people use alcohol recreationally and the few that don't get properly punished for whatever crimes they commit. Who says that drugs would be any different?
It's true that prohibition didn't stop everybody from drinking, but it unquestionably stopped many people from drinking. I suspect that if statistics were available, you'd have seen a massive drop in drunk-driving accidents for example....and a corresponding huge increase when prohibition ended. Were those innocent lives taken (and that continue to be taken), worth the freedom to drink? IMHO it's perfectly acceptable for society - not the individual - to make that choice via the law.
China for example had a massive Opium problem at one point in time - they used the law to get rid of it. I don't think people realize how bad things had gotten before these anti-narcotics laws came onto the books. Surely they don't keep everybody from doing drugs, but to me there's no question that they've largely set out what we wrote them to do.
Werent republicans supposed to be anti-government inference of personal life?
'Oh no you cant curb my carbon emissions ****ing greenies! Its a free country after all'
'Sure you can decide what substances i swallow almighty leader'
shocker1
12-11-2007, 03:02 PM
Rape and murder have also always existed - and people continue to do both regardless of the law. Using your logic, laws against them are also irrelevant?
T
I see no moral equivalence here comparing narcotics law to rape and murder law. I mean why even go that route? It is obvious that cannabis should be legal and regulated. Very good arguments can be made but I think I agree with you on the more damaging vices such as heroin and such.
Like I have said before I do not agree with everything this man says but on the whole and considering the fundamental principle he represents I do support his bid. Calling him a kook as you did earlier was not proper and sounded like Hannity's sorry self. You are better than that and could spin up a better, more entertaining critique.
I think he has struck a nerve with Americans, raised issues that others would rather keep out of our minds. I mean come on 2-sheds, the Huckster is supposed to be the man of the hour now. How's that for media spin and diversion? Rudy and Romney just are not taking attention and money from Dr. Paul enough for the GOP. They must break out the Pastor, Southern Baptist too. That is so obvious that it makes this Baptist from the South sick to his stomach. A real man of God would not run for office.p-)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.