The Truth About Ron Paul

[Dan Kone]

Like I mentioned in an earlier post about the bailouts. If we had let GM and all of the banks fail, and instead opted to use the bailout money for the citizens of this country, each person (rich, poor, employed or not) would receive over $29,000. With this money people would have gone spending it all on debts, and other purchases at which the people of America would have willfully chosen the product that they desired the most that likely was of best quality. Therefore, failing companies with bad products and unreasonable prices as well as being completely reliable would have failed whilst companies opposite of that would have absolutely flourished and would absolutely take the place of the bigger business. Saving a bad business is bad business no matter what way you spin it. And over regulation was the cause, stop being so ignorant and actually look at the facts of it.

You forgot the part where when the banks go out of business the economy collapses and no one has a job. I guess from your point of view that's a good thing because they no longer have to pay taxes, but for those of us living on planet earth, that's a very bad thing.

But no, people wouldn't be getting back any money. It wouldn't have been a net positive financial result. Even if we gave the money to those corporations instead of loaning it to them we would have still come out way ahead due to the decrease in revenue that comes with +30% unemployment.

There would have been a pretty good chance that our entire country could have collapsed and descended into anarchy. I know you probably want that, but those of us who aren't insane understand how bad that would have been.

 

[Dan Kone]

i must disagree OI. Personal responsibility is where my beliefs lie.

Too bad that when people make bad financial decisions on a large scale, we are all held responsible. We you hold people responsible for these things, people who had nothing at all to do with the bad decision lose everything.

So why should I be held responsible for a bad decision made by AIG? I don't make their decisions nor do I invest money with them. Yet the collapse of their company could destroy the economy, resulting in me losing everything.

 

[budlover13]

Too bad that when people make bad financial decisions on a large scale, we are all held responsible. We you hold people responsible for these things, people who had nothing at all to do with the bad decision lose everything.

So why should I be held responsible for a bad decision made by AIG? I don't make their decisions nor do I invest money with them. Yet the collapse of their company could destroy the economy, resulting in me losing everything.

There's been a HUGE lack of personal responsibility in this country for quite some time now unfortunately.

 

[Mr Neutron]

But to get to what your main argument is, that we're deprived of the choice... Sure, you got me. You dont get a choice in the matter. You know why? Because we, as a society, have decided that the costs to society outweigh the individual "liberty" that you would otherwise be afforded. If you don't like it, you can try and change the law (ala the marijuana movement)... But to argue that cocaine is in the wrong camp (illegal drug) like marijuana is in the wrong camp is going to be much more difficult - and ultimately, you'll likely fail in your campaign.

I disagree that "society" decided that some drugs should be made illegal. It was, once again, the elitists and moral authoritarians in government, that decided what drugs should be made illegal. The same mind set that is pissing on the Constitution and turning America into a police state.
If we are to use your logic in choosing which drugs will be allowed, then what about the "cost to society" of alcohol abuse? Why isn't alcohol prohibited? Alcohol causes more harm to society than all the junkies put together. Oh, wait, it was, once.
Also, why is marijuana a schedule 1 drug, when cocaine is a schedule 2 drug? Cocaine can kill and is addictive but marijuana is scheduled by the DEA as a more dangerous drug. Can you see the problems with trying to legislate behavior? Who decides? Where do you draw the line?
The drug war has been perpetuated to increase the power and scope of the police state and to hang a moral face on a tyrannical oligarchy. The same oligarchy that has destroyed the middle class, the dollar, the Constitution and the American Dream.

"Of all tyrannies, the tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims, may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good, will torment us without end, for they do so without the approval of their own conscience." C S Lewis

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason, in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." Abraham Lincoln

 

[mame]

I disagree that "society" decided that some drugs should be made illegal. It was, once again, the elitists and moral authoritarians in government, that decided what drugs should be made illegal.

Somebody had to vote those people in. Again, society made a choice.

The same mind set that is pissing on the Constitution and turning America into a police state.

Your opinion. I've lived my life quite freely. Have you not? Compared to the rest of the world the U.S. is hardly a police state.

If we are to use your logic in choosing which drugs will be allowed, then what about the "cost to society" of alcohol abuse? Why isn't alcohol prohibited? Alcohol causes more harm to society than all the junkies put together. Oh, wait, it was, once.

Prohibition failed to stop use of alchohol, just as it is failing with Marijuana but the broader war on drugs against crack/cocaine, etc has been successful. That's how we decide... Costs. Benefits. Very simple.

Also, why is marijuana a schedule 1 drug, when cocaine is a schedule 2 drug? Cocaine can kill and is addictive but marijuana is scheduled by the DEA as a more dangerous drug. Can you see the problems with trying to legislate behavior? Who decides? Where do you draw the line?

Marijuana has been in the wrong basket for decades... That'll likely soon change though. I never said the system was perfect and unfortunately it takes a long time to fix mistakes...

The drug war has been perpetuated to increase the power and scope of the police state and to hang a moral face on a tyrannical oligarchy. The same oligarchy that has destroyed the middle class, the dollar, the Constitution and the American Dream.

No, the drug war is not about power it's about preserving potential economic activity... What's so hard to see about this? Over 70% of those billions of dollars lost to drug use come from a loss in productivity. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you can legislate away every bad behavior, it's just that the evidence clearly shows the broader war on drugs (non-marijuana related) has done well in discouraging use of "hard" drugs.

You see, it's all about balance. There is no one size fits all approach to what should and shouldn't be acceptable in society. Following a libertarian model and legalizing all drug use would likely end up over time hurting society - but at the same time, a heavily authoritarian model obviously has the potential to unfairly infringe on liberties and would likely end up as a waste of time and money... As prohibition on Alchohol was and what Marijuana prohibition has obviously become.

 

[sync0s]

I don't know where you get your numbers that claim the loss of economic productivity that is caused by drugs, really. I think Sudafed had quite a solid customer base before the government started regulating it... Plenty more companies where this comes from.

 

[mame]

I don't know where you get your numbers that claim the loss of economic productivity that is caused by drugs, really. I think Sudafed had quite a solid customer base before the government started regulating it... Plenty more companies where this comes from.

All the numbers that I used in my argument are sourced. You dont trust them? Then prove me wrong. Anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything, BTW.

 

[sync0s]

First to your earlier comment about being free I just wanted to say that the rest of the world is not a barometer to the freedom of the United States. There was a time when the freedom of religion would make us exceptionally free even without the freedom of speech or press, but this did not stop our founding fathers from attempting to establish a fully free society. When our government infringes on these rights, no matter where in the world you compare us to, then this ceases to be the free America that it once was.

Secondly every source you provided for your numbers are government sources. No third party unbiased sources? Your talking about numbers released by people who still believe that you can die from a marijuana overdose. Come on man haven't you ever taken a prob & stats class?

 

[BendBrewer]

The truth about RP is that no matter how much you may agree with him, he is completely unelectable and he's going to prove it one more time.

Sorry, you wanted the truth.

 

[mame]

First to your earlier comment about being free I just wanted to say that the rest of the world is not a barometer to the freedom of the United States. There was a time when the freedom of religion would make us exceptionally free even without the freedom of speech or press, but this did not stop our founding fathers from attempting to establish a fully free society. When our government infringes on these rights, no matter where in the world you compare us to, then this ceases to be the free America that it once was.

Secondly every source you provided for your numbers are government sources. No third party unbiased sources? Your talking about numbers released by people who still believe that you can die from a marijuana overdose. Come on man haven't you ever taken a prob & stats class?

Uhm, the "cost to society" numbers I posted are backed up in detail in the 100 page .PDF that I linked to, it may be from the government but instead of hating on the source based on name, do so based on content. They presented their case pretty well actually... They used past yearly healthcare costs, etc put em all together for several years... established a trend, made a couple projections, etc... Overall pretty sound work so have fun spinning your wheels over the source. Also, for the usage numbers - who besides the government (in this case HHS) conducts these surveys? Looks like outside sources for this kind of info go back to .gov sources as well...

 

[NoDrama]

Just my views on politics

We cannot let businesses fail, because then families fail, we have to keep them from taking unnecessary risks at the cost of their employees or economies as a whole. we've seen what deregulation does to the stock market and banking firms. I like the idea of a Philosopher king(intelligent government looking out for the people) over the idea of social Darwinism and rampant free market.

If a business is scamming people, causing harm, killing people with bad or unsafe products or perhaps is fraudulently doing business and you want to make sure they never fail? You haven't really thought about this have you?

This country cannot have Nobility, no kings of any kind, no royalty whatsoever. That is the law.




Who came up with the idea that Dr Paul was some religious nut? That he would be for intelligent design? A statement made out of pure ignorance.

 

[NoDrama]

Uhm, the "cost to society" numbers I posted are backed up in detail in the 100 page .PDF that I linked to, it may be from the government but instead of hating on the source based on name, do so based on content. They presented their case pretty well actually... They used past yearly healthcare costs, etc put em all together for several years... established a trend, made a couple projections, etc... Overall pretty sound work so have fun spinning your wheels over the source. Also, for the usage numbers - who besides the government (in this case HHS) conducts these surveys? Looks like outside sources for this kind of info go back to .gov sources as well...

In other words, the government stat people just made a guess as to how much it costs, they have no ACTUAL proof. They used trends data and made assumptions to come up with the numbers. They also did not take into account the amount of money it takes to imprison someone for a year.. average incarceration cost for each prisoner is $30,000. Assume 50% of all prisoners are there for drugs. or drug related issues and you have a current prison population of 2,020,000. 1,010,000 X $30,000 = 30.3 Billion, subtract your 10 billion and we would have a direct net savings of 20 Billion.

Lets not forget the 2 drugs with the absolute greatest deaths attributed, the greatest amount of health risks for doing and Oh BTW they are legal drugs. Alcohol and Tobacco. Alcohol is the lead factor in over 80,000 deaths per year and tobacco is directly responsible for 450,000 deaths per year, and indirectly for an additional 600,000 ( just in the USA alone) yet they don't include these in the report, nor do you even mention them. Hypocritical of our system of government to allow the most dangerous drugs of all to be legal and killing people every day? You bet it is.


Tobacco is the most dangerous drug known to mankind, it is directly responsible for over 50 Million deaths worldwide each year. Yet its completely legal and kills 50 times as many people as heroin does. The cost of Tobacco to the economy is FAR FAR greater than all other drugs combined.

16,000 deaths related to heroin in the USA, even alcohol kills five times more than heroin.

Sometimes you have to wonder what they have planned for us, having the 2 most dangerous drugs available and legal, yet have the most harmless drug of all (Marijuana) ranked as one of the worst drugs possible.

 

[BendBrewer]

Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.

 

[Mindmelted]

And pharmaceutical's kill more a year than the so called illegal drugs...

 

[Timmahh]

no.

i think he's an idiot who's never met a heroin addict.

i've had family die b/c of aids contracted from sharing needles and have more than one friend hooked on the drug and given MY experience I can 100% assure Dr. Paul that HEROIN should not be legalized. PERIOD.

i believe his point of view is wrong and nothing you can do/say/show will EVER change that.

because you had junkies in your family bloodline that died from using dirty needles? so I must vote to make something illegal because your family cant handle themselves? that IS what you are saying after all.

 

[Timmahh]

i didn't know shooting up heroin was an essential liberty.

i really don't care what you say, i have enough experience to make up my own mind.

philosophical and rhetorical jibber jabber is best left to scholars.

this isn't about politics. it's about doing something that's actually good.

its, as essential as the abilty to freely breath air, as it is the ability to freely bare arms.

thats not to say i breath the air and you cant. or i have a gun im holding while raping some woman....

be honest. addicts are addicts. from food to heroin, to shopping for shoes, to oxycotin addictions. addiction is a personality type. the addicting substance is the only differance between various addicts.
in a recent study, it was proven that food is addicting.

while studying the brain patterns of food addicts, they show the same areas, and intensity of activity as does a heroin addict, or a oxy addict. this proves the addiction is with in the person, NOT the thing they are addicted to.

So if someone is addicted to food, should eating be outlawed? unconstitutional? how about someone addicted to water? maybe we can freeze all the water in the world and ship it off to the sun, it wont bother any PHYCOLOGICALLY ADDICTED addicts there.

 

[NoDrama]

Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.

That does not mean they are for intelligent design.

 

[Timmahh]

Individualism vs collectivism. America was not founded on the principle of what is best for the majority. It was created to protect the rights of the individual.
Saying that you're for legalizing one substance but not another is the epitome of hypocrisy. Suggesting that the more laws you have, the more fair life will be is from a totalitarian mind-set. Believing that continuing on the same road that has brought us to the brink of economic collapse, is the right thing to do, is insane.
Flinging aspersions at Ron Paul and his never ending crusade to restore individual liberty, just shows how ignorant some are of their very own country.

Great Post. Simple to understand, and directly to the point. you have earned my first Like! congratulations.
but i do agree 100%. well stated.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Somebody had to vote those people in. Again, society made a choice.

Just because the people get to vote for their representatives doesn't mean that society decides the law. And just because those same representatives tell us something is bad for us and they are going to protect us from ourselves by banning said substance doesn't mean THAT is the real reason behind the ban.

Your opinion. I've lived my life quite freely. Have you not? Compared to the rest of the world the U.S. is hardly a police state.

Of course it's my opinion. Are you saying your statements are facts? I used to feel the same way until the "scales fell from my eyes." More people in America are afraid of a tax audit than they are of being mugged by a junkie. People are being thrown in jail illegally for video taping officers in public. Innocent people are being killed by over zealous law enforcement participating in this senseless war on drugs. The right to privacy is gone.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe

Prohibition failed to stop use of alchohol, just as it is failing with Marijuana but the broader war on drugs against crack/cocaine, etc has been successful. That's how we decide... Costs. Benefits. Very simple.

Successful? Successful? By what measure can you say the war on drugs has been successful? Mame, I know you're smarter than that, you really can't believe that, do you?

Marijuana has been in the wrong basket for decades... That'll likely soon change though. I never said the system was perfect and unfortunately it takes a long time to fix mistakes...

Agreed and a Libertarian society is not perfect, either, BUT it makes people be responsible for their actions. Do what you want but do no harm. Or, The Golden Rule, if you prefer. The line has been crossed too many times by these dictators of morality to allow them to continue to make the same mistakes. (if they are mistakes)
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

No, the drug war is not about power it's about preserving potential economic activity... What's so hard to see about this? Over 70% of those billions of dollars lost to drug use come from a loss in productivity. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you can legislate away every bad behavior, it's just that the evidence clearly shows the broader war on drugs (non-marijuana related) has done well in discouraging use of "hard" drugs.

Preserving potential economic activity AND the war on drugs has discouraged hard use... now I think you are just playing devil's advocate. "What's so hard to see about this?" That's like saying a nuclear bomb is more powerful than a firecracker because it costs more to make.

You see, it's all about balance. There is no one size fits all approach to what should and shouldn't be acceptable in society. Following a libertarian model and legalizing all drug use would likely end up over time hurting society - but at the same time, a heavily authoritarian model obviously has the potential to unfairly infringe on liberties and would likely end up as a waste of time and money... As prohibition on Alchohol was and what Marijuana prohibition has obviously become.

But authoritarian "light" wouldn't infringe on liberty? So all we need to do is keep passing more laws and someday they'll get it right, huh?
I'm a big believer in balance but what you're talking about is not balance. What you're suggesting is giving up liberty for security and that is exactly what Franklin and other Founding Fathers warned us about.

Look, it's real simple. We tried prohibition in the 20's and not only did it not work but it gave rise to the most powerful crime organizations in America, if not the world. And it's obvious that we have not learned our history lesson very well. The drug cartels and street gangs continue their battles with innocents being caught in the middle. The drug war has other costs besides that of education, treatment and law enforcement. There is the cost of incarceration and that is not just a monetary cost but a cost in lives.

 

[budlover13]

Great Post. Simple to understand, and directly to the point. you have earned my first Like! congratulations.
but i do agree 100%. well stated.

I just posted that on FB. As a quote, but leaving it anonymous.