kevbone Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News about his insistence that “the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits,” and his specific opposition to restrictions on cocaine, heroin, and prostitution, the candidate claimed that social conservatives would nonetheless vote for him “if they understand my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice their religion and say their prayers where they want to practice their life. But if you do not protect liberty across the board it’s the First Amendment-type issue… You know, it’s amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way but not when it comes to our personal habits.” Ron Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I'll take the lower right square for the win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 reckon we can file ron under "briefly tempting" rob? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 you can file him under "whitey" too. " Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told Chris Mathews on MSNBC Friday that he would not have voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if he were a member of congress at the time. Though Paul said that while he thought Jim Crow laws were illegal, he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws." Video of the interview is below. When Matthews appeared surprised, Paul accused him of being a demagogue on the issue. "He said that talk of the segregated South that the Civil Rights Act aimed to reform is too old to be relevant, because "Whites Only" signs are "ancient history." Like many who opposed the civil rights reforms at their time, Paul said, in true libertarian form, that Jim Crow laws would have ended anyways, because of the free market" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 sign him up for "too smart for science" as well: "Contrary to claims repeated over and over, there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade." http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-06-29/cap-and-trade-another-nail-in-the-economys-coffin/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
builder206 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Before we go off on political rants, I'd like the thread to deliver on the hookers and drugs title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 It is the same philosophy as neighbors and those living downstream. What am I to do if my neighbor decides to constantly blare music after midnight when I am asleep? What if I live downstream on the creek and my neighbor decides to dump toxic chemicals in the water? Personal choices are fine...like drug use...except when the users of those personal choices affect others. Meth was a classic example of how excessive drug created people to steal from others, and used the medical system--and not pay for the service. Ron Pual with that particulr statement IMO did not look at the bigger picture of how it affected others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Ron Paul ignoring the public interest isn't particular to that statement, it's the corner stone of his ideology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Ron Paul exists to help weed out the morons in our society. You know, like the lottery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Personal choices are fine...like drug use...except when the users of those personal choices affect others. Meth was a classic example of how excessive drug created people to steal from others, and used the medical system--and not pay for the service. wouldn't the logical extension of that idea though deny medicare to cigarette smokers and eaters of big macs and couch-potatoes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 Ron Paul exists to help weed out the morons in our society. You know, like the lottery. Or like religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Personal choices are fine...like drug use...except when the users of those personal choices affect others. Meth was a classic example of how excessive drug created people to steal from others, and used the medical system--and not pay for the service. If meth leads people to commit crimes, why not just arrest them for committing crimes? Arresting a drug user because he might commit a crime later is like arresting a bully cause he might rob a bank when he grows up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 There is a world of possibilities between imprisonment for drug use and making these drugs legal while destroying the social safety net (Paul's solution). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Before we go off on political rants, I'd like the thread to deliver on the hookers and drugs title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 This thread sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I Arresting a drug user because he might commit a crime later is like arresting a bully cause he might rob a bank when he grows up. Actually, we do that. Bullying is a targeted behavior at schools because it is such an indicator for sociopathic behavior later in life... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I Arresting a drug user because he might commit a crime later is like arresting a bully cause he might rob a bank when he grows up. Actually, we do that. Bullying is a targeted behavior at schools because it is such an indicator for sociopathic behavior later in life... Really? And they are targeted, arrested and jailed? Weird, I've never seen that happen. I guess the prisons must be full of meth dealers and 10 year-old bullies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) I Arresting a drug user because he might commit a crime later is like arresting a bully cause he might rob a bank when he grows up. Actually, we do that. Bullying is a targeted behavior at schools because it is such an indicator for sociopathic behavior later in life... Really? And they are targeted, arrested and jailed? Weird, I've never seen that happen. I guess the prisons must be full of meth dealers and 10 year-old bullies. Yes. Schools have programs to identify bullying behavior. And yes, they get "jailed": detention, in school suspension, out of school suspension, expulsion, etc... Edited May 19, 2011 by max Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 You're right. It's exactly the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 You're right. It's exactly the same. What do you expect? The rapture is upon us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 God, you people suuuck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 fellatio! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Personal choices are fine...like drug use...except when the users of those personal choices affect others. Meth was a classic example of how excessive drug created people to steal from others, and used the medical system--and not pay for the service. wouldn't the logical extension of that idea though deny medicare to cigarette smokers and eaters of big macs and couch-potatoes? Yes. And I want more hookers and blow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 If meth leads people to commit crimes, why not just arrest them for committing crimes? Arresting a drug user because he might commit a crime later is like arresting a bully cause he might rob a bank when he grows up. Arresting comes AFTER they commit the crimes. Why not prevent the crimes ahead of time? Yes, it is all "Minority Report" stuff. Nothing aint perfect. I want more hookers and blow too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.