Tell me why Ron Paul will not get your vote

His defense stance is not apologetic. It is understanding. He is a doctor, and his job was to treat illnesses not the symptoms. The CIA developed a definition for what is going on, Blowback. This states that our meddling in the affairs overseas creates more insurgents at a higher rate than we can kill them. He understands that the hatred for our occupying force traces back to 1953 when we toppled their first democratically elected president to install a brutal dictator.

His stance on drugs is also not naive. The thought that we can ever eradicate all drug use or that the war on drugs actually helps anybody involved is naive. Making drugs legal on a federal level would not increase usage. States would still be allowed to enforce any regulations they see fit. Also the only reason there is violence involved in the drug trade is because the sellers have only one recourse to settle disputes among colleagues and that is violence. You don't see Wal-Mart and K-mart shooting it out on the streets because they deal in legal goods.

 

This entire post exhibits the amount of confusion you usually portray. So, kudos on shooting par.

 

It's a minor thing, but I like Obama because he pulled us out of Great Depression II and the 3rd World status the Banana Republicans had planned for us.

 

I believe he only served to soften the blow and prolong the recession. Quantitative easing, printing of money, is the cause of the boom and bust cycle that has been predictably repeating for decades. Ron Paul and the Austrian economists have seen all this in advance. Anyway it is government that caused our economic woes and only the free market can correct it.

 

He did soften the blow but we'll never know about the prolongation thang. Letting the economy collapse (as Romney and most Republicans wanted to do) would have totally displaced millions and millions. Who knows how long it would have taken to recover from that.

 

He's too old plain and simple.

 

This is exactly why people call Paultards a cult. In their minds everyone who hears Ron Paul speak should agree with them. If they don't they are either confused or crazy.

 

While I would take Paul over Obama, Romney, or Santorum; I have decided to cast my lot with Newt over Paul.

1. Paul's insatiable appetite to blame middle east problems on US intervention just isn't correct. Islam was born to rule the world in the 600's and nothing has changed with a large sect of that religion.

2. He claims to be a constitutionalist but apparently doesn't understand it. He constantly rails that "only congress can declare war" and while it does state that, it is also clear that the President can enter battle at anytime without congressional approval if we are attacked. The "declare war" only pertains to us starting it first. Iraq he may be correct, but Afghanistan he is not. (See Jefferson and the Bay of Tripoli and opinions of Alexander Hamilton)

3. He states the constitution only allows for silver and gold money, but actually it only says that in pertaining to what States can do. It says the fed has the power to "coin" or "create" money, but doesn't specify that it should be only gold or silver as it implies for the State governments.

4. Should he become President, he would get nothing done because the politicians on either side just wouldn't go along with his plan.

5. He's a terrible public speaker and really comes across as a whiner to me.

6. I agree with Paul on ending the Federal Reserve, but he believes fiat money is the problem. I believe fiat money can be fine if properly used by the treasury dept and that fractional reserve banking and letting banks create money from debt is the problem. Colonial Script worked fine and was a fiat currency

7. So I'm going with Newt. He knows the system better than any of them. Knows how to push the congressional buttons and I believe he has the best chance of actually accomplishing something productive if elected. I think conservatives need a political "gamer" at this point in time and his economic plan has actually been scored to eliminate the deficit in less than 5 years.

 

Not possible under the Constitution as presently amended.

 

That's fine. I'm primarily concerned with repealing Federal drug laws, though I certainly don't think prohibition on any scale to be wise policy.

 

Good thing he's not an advocate of an "unfettered" free market. Most people wrongly conflate "free market" with "lawless", and that is just dead wrong; indeed, in order for free markets to work, they require laws that protect property rights and enforce contracts, among other things.

 

Alcohol causes more death and unhealth than meth and coke combined.

I will never understand this "logic". What do you think the difference will be, aside from more tax revenues and a smaller prison population? It's not like drug laws actually accomplish anything beneficial, so why do you think we need to gradually phase them out? It'd be the same thing as gradually phasing out voodoo or shamanism. The smart thing to do is to simply acknowledge they don't work and that it's time to discard them.

 

Well, when you can get in your car and legally go get it I would not say it is really prohibited from a practical standpoint. Most Indian reservations are dry. And yet they have the highest incidence of alcoholism of any group in America. I guess when you can mosy over to another county and buy your booze it matters little what your county says.

For me, tyranny is tyranny whether it's local or federal.

 

I totally agree, but as a practical matter, proponents of legalization need to be somewhat flexible if we ever want to make any sort of progress towards ending the war on drugs. The first step should be repealing Federal drug laws. Ultimately, it's about incremental, informed, and voluntary reform.

 

If I were President that would be a first 100 days item. I may not be able to repeal the laws per se because that requires the Congress, but I could and would cease to enforce federal drug laws regarding the use and possession of illegal drugs. Then I would stop enforcing any federal laws relating to marijuana, including production, sale and importation thereof.

 

You bet and always appreciated! But I can't help my sense of humor. It's not like anyone takes a lot here all that seriously.

The biggest flaw in Libertarian philosophy is that The Market will always correct itself; will eliminate companies that sell bad or dangerous products; will eliminate companies that abuse it's employes; therefore government regulation is not only not needed, it is counter to the good of the citizenry.

This is false and also will make obvious which issues I disagree with Ron Paul on.

I do agree with him on not giving taxpayer money to the corrupt politicians of other countries, the war on drugs and some other things but if I am diametrically opposed to the foundation of his basic political philosophy, how could anyone expect me to vote for him?

 

Actually, most Libertarians, including me, do not think that at all! It's a common misperception. The government's primary role is to protect the rights of its citizens. So you cannot make an exploding toaster or bread that kills people. You cannot abuse anyone for any reason. You cannot dump toxic sludge in the river. You cannot cause harm to others because there is an "inc." involved.

It's not anarchy or no government. It's LIMITED government. There would be regulation. There has to be. Otherwise it's anarchy.

 

Well then let me thank you for informing me. Many of the Libertarians I have encountered here and irl have the views I reiterated but it's good to know this is not necessarily the majority and at minimum, not all.

I still disagree with what I percieve as the gist - which is that virtually all Federal government agencies & regulation should be replaced at the state level. I see a huge problem with this.
Am I wrong again? Comments?

btw, it's great to have an intelligent conversation with those of opposing views, that doesn't include the usual petty insults or labels such as "Secret Agent Liberal", "Statist" etc... !

 

He has yet to convince me of his sincerity regarding abolishing a cost center over a profit center, in the name of fiscal responsibility.

 

I'm sure there are some. Libertarians actually do have wider ranging views than people think. Unlike Democrats or Republicans we do not just follow the company line because we feel some loyalty to the "team". That's a bit lazy.

Most do think the 10th Amendment is a real amendment even if it is ignored. But here's the gig: Limited government and personal liberty means just that. Saying you want limited government and personal liberty at the Federal level, but are fine without those things at the state level is pretty stupid. It means you don't actually believe in those things, you simply believe that Federal Nanny is bad, but state Nanny is fine. And that view is OK,you just can't call yourself a Libertarian IMO. As for regulation, I've changed my mind over the years. I'm a corporate banker and I underwrite large corporate loans (the ones I'm told banks don't do anymore). Over the last 16 years I've spoken to more CFO's than I can count. And one thing they universally hate is negotiating the morass of federal regulations, combined with the different rules in the various states. It's a gigantic task. They would much prefer a single set of rules as opposed to 50 different sets. Now, this does not apply to small businesses operating in one or two states, but it does apply to all large corporations. So I think it would be better for large, interstate corporations to have a single set of reasonable rules. And companies don't hate regulations like many think. They just want common sense, easy to follow regulations. Most don't actually want to make to make exploding toasters. It's bad for repeat business after all.

The overall IQ level on this site has gotten shockingly low. I've never seen more posts saying literally nothing in my life. I ignore half the posters now. I just skip over anything they write.

 

Good advice. There are several people here (All Conservs) who follow me around just to post about me. They never address topics or issues, they just post that I must really be a Liberal because I dont' agree with them on everything. They're cute.

 

I true libertarian is not afraid of freedom, including the freedom of the people of a state, county or city to make their own laws. A person should have more power over their lives the closer you get to their home. Education for example. We can go down to the school board meeting and be heard, not so with the federal Dept of Education. There, you had Ted Kennedy (not an educator and not elected by most of the country) write legislation affecting every child in the country. Then, our esteemed congress voted for it (probably without reading it). Drugs would be exactly like alcohol, voted for or against by the people in the locale. The debate would probably educate more people about the dangers of drugs than school lectures and t-shirt slogans ever could.

 

Okay so let's look at your example of education and the freedom of locals to make their own laws - which is what kept those pesky blacks and latinos out of good, white schools until that dang Federal Government came in with their regulations and such.
No thanks.

 

So, because some locales violated the Constitution back then, you think it's fine for the feds to violate it now? Honestly, look at how much money is wasted by having redundant levels of govt control. I just don't understand why you would place so much trust in someone who never vowed to represent you in any way.

 

You do realize it was the federal government during the Wilson regime that instituted segregation.