Ron Paul Supporters in Wonderland

How cute! :laugh: I especially like the Homer Simpson x-ray at the end.

Here is Bill Maher's take on 9/11 Truthers. It's pretty cute, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se664bLPP3c

 

Aww! I just think these folks is scared of Ron Paul . The more they smear the more free publicity Ron Paul gets.

 

All libertarians are political losers.

Someday I should like a libertarian to tell me what is the difference between libertarianism and anarchy. All libertarians are political losers but they just keep tilting at windmills. The best way to defeat libertarians is just quote exactly what they stand for and then compare it to what Jesus stood for.

 

There are libertarians who believe in no government. They are know as anarcho-capitalists. However, I am not one of those as I advocate limited, constitutional government(as did our Founding Fathers). Therefore, you would have to find an anarcho-capitalist to explain their position, or do some Google research.

 

:sleeping_2: Oh look, another Ron Paul hater... This guy is more of a nut then he is playing Ron Paul to be.

We all know Ron won't be elected, although I will give him my vote, but he will continue to make people think. You guys that continue to belittle/harrass him, I hope you're happy with what you get stuck with.

Jamie

 

Well, from my perspective, lbtns support a police and a military to enforce what's known as "natural rights." (There's a good bit of literature written on the subject if you're interested. One of the best being Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz. Also, check out the Mises Institute at Mises.org) Anarchists don't support any form of govt or for that matter, natural rights.

Actually, according to Cato (our think tank) and Reason (our magazine), most lbtns vote for the two major parties. For the record, I do as well. I have no intention of throwing my vote away. In a similar way, prolifers do as much. There's really no such thing on the national level as a prolife candidate but I take it you don't vote for the Constitution Party. Bottom line is, all of us do the most we can to achieve the best we can and that, unfortunately, requires compromise.

 

As far as your Jesus comment, church mouse guy, I respectfully disagree. It's actually a Baptist tradition of sorts to argue that private sin is between man and his God. (Read about Pilgrim's Progress author John Bunyan and his fight to legalize Islam in England even though he considered it heresy. Or Williams and Catholics in Rhode Island.) I see no Scriptural mandate for criminalizing private sin be it gluttongy or alcohol or prostitution. (You'll note, Christ, unlike the Pharisees, did not support legally punishing the woman caught in the act of adultery.)

My question for you and the like minded, church mouse guy, is that if private sin should be criminalized, which ones? And why those at the exclusion of others?

 

My political story.

One day I was driving in my former car, a '95 Ford Escort. I was listening to Michael Savage talk about the need to get tough on drug abusers and "Amen"ing him as talk radio fans are accustomed to. Simultaneously, I was popping chocolate glazed donughts from a gigantic box on the passenger seat. Back in the day, I was a staunch conservative, as staunch and consevative as they come. I listened to Rush, read Ann Coulter, and argued vehemently that liberals were stupid and libertarians were anarchists. (I know that's hard to believe!) Anyway, Savage made some sort of comment about druggies abusing their bodies and how deadly their recreation was. It suddenly occurred to me, mid-doughnut actually, that my morbid obesity was a problem. I was roughly 100 pounds excessive and was adding to the problem daily. Or shall we say, meal-ly. The thought then entered my chocolate craving brain that if druggies should have the book thrown at them for practicing a self-destructive lifestyle then so should I. After all, there's really no moral or philosophical difference between self-destructive behavior and, well, self-destructive behavior. My immediate reaction was to inwardly proclaim, "But I'm not hurting anybody else and my private life is just that." This is when I discovered that libertarianism is intuitive. It's the natural, healthy way of viewing life. Now, I don't know what anyone else here is doing that's immoral or self-destructive. (My sin was both.) But I take it that if I were to kick your door down and cuff you for it you'd argue along the same line of reasoning. Libertarianism, to me, is the way God intended society to function. It is intuitive. It is only natural. And I would argue that everyone deep down knows this.

 

And have I mentioned yet in this thread that I'll probably vote FT? I'd hate to break tradition!

 

Really? Is this the thinking of libertarians? There is no moral or philosophical difference between crack and chocolate donuts?

Come on now ... Surely you don't expect that to be taken seriously.

 

Crack and gluttony. Please read sentences before responding.

 

Remember, God appointed Judges to rule Israel, so I think Ivon is right on. When Israel demanded to be ruled by a king their troubles started.

I have no problem with Ron Paul, as a man. I don't agree with him 100%, but he is an honest guy, I believe. I don't like the things his supporters do (some of them, anyway), but I'd sure like to see a limited govt. guy in. FT looks good, and I do think he's electable.

 

I read them and my point stands. Crack and gluttony (whether in the form of chocolate donuts or pizza or anything else) are not the same type of issue.

If you go back and read your own sentences, you will see that in the post I responded to you never used the word gluttony. You talked about your morbid obesity, your reaching back for chocolate glazed donuts, and your chocolate craving brain.

Your previous post had linked gluttony, alcohol, and prostitution ... again, at best a questionable analogy, but not nearly so bad as the addictive drugs analogy. Even in that post, prostitution and alcohol are not private sins. When a man goes to a prostitute, he is abusing a woman, destroying a marriage and a family. When a man drinks alcohol, he is putting himself in a position to bring risk and damage to others both in his family (e.g. abusiveness) and outside his family (e.g., drunk driving). Should these be legislated? Sure. They already are. But not to the extent that addictive drugs are and for good reason. They are not the same.

So my point stands.

 

Yes indeedy. It sounds like the Republican Senate to me.

 

Actions among consenting adults should be none of the government's business as no abuse is taking place in a legal sense.

 

Absolutely. It should be no business of the government what a person willingly ingests be it a drug or sugar.

But don't worry, Pastor Larry, the trend in this country is in the direction of the government regulating/banning more and more substances/actions, not legalizing those that are currently illegal. I full expect to see items such as sugar, fat, fast food, etc., to be restricted/taxed as time goes on.

 

You see I have a higher view of women than that.

Being that drugs and drug addiction is one of the leading causes of crime in this country, as well as leading to abuse of children, spouses, neighbors, etc., it is completely with the governments right to step in since the constitution says to provide for the general welfare.

What we are seeing wtiih you, Ken, is that as much as you like to say "constitution" you don't actually believe it.

 

1) Not really. If a woman willingly engages in prostitution what gives you the right to tell her that she can't do so legally?

2) Then prosecute the crimes that are committed and the abuse that is committed. Just because something is legal in this country doesn't mean that one can freely commit a crime due to irresponsible use of a product be it alcohol or whatever. Also, how many of these crimes would not be committed if these illegal drugs were legal and their prices were not artificially inflated because they are illegal?

 

The only vote that is thrown away is the one that is not cast.