Ron Paul vs. Any Other Candidate

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No, the only responsibility of the government should be to protect us, from others and from ourselves..

Leviathan

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Leviathan

You and I are on the same page.

I don't see how that is conservatism either. Conservatism was about personal freedom until the neocons took over.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You and I are on the same page.

I don't see how that is conservatism either. Conservatism was about personal freedom until the neocons took over.

Agreed 100%

Conservatism (in my view) took up where the classical liberals lift off when the latter changed the definition of liberty into social equality.

Who is to define what "protecting us from ourselves" mean anyway? To some that justifies violation of privacy, to others that's legislating morality and to a few, that justifies violating the rights of liberty - who is right and who is wrong? We can never guarantee our security so to me the trade off is not worth it, thus they are all wrong for none can protect us from "ourselves".

We don't need them to do it anyway - a more fragmented, checked government, the better.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You and I are on the same page.

I don't see how that is conservatism either. Conservatism was about personal freedom until the neocons took over.

He's not saying ban trans fat to protect us from ourselves. He could very well have meant the key roles of our government are military defense and a criminal justice system.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He's not saying ban trans fat to protect us from ourselves. He could very well have meant the key roles of our government are military defense and a criminal justice system.

That would be protecting us from each other, not ourselves. Protecting us from ourselves is like the trans-fat thing you mentioned, or something a bit more realistic, drugs, sex, and rock-and-roll.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You and I are on the same page.

I don't see how that is conservatism either. Conservatism was about personal freedom until the neocons took over.

I know how much ya miss me!

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He's not saying ban trans fat to protect us from ourselves. He could very well have meant the key roles of our government are military defense and a criminal justice system.

Yes.

Basically to provide to us what we can't provide to ourselves (ie military defense, police force, firefighters)

We can take care of our own health and livelihoods. We don't need the government to tell us how to do that.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That would be protecting us from each other, not ourselves. Protecting us from ourselves is like the trans-fat thing you mentioned, or something a bit more realistic, drugs, sex, and rock-and-roll.

"ourselves" = Americans

"others" = non-Americans

Seriously, don't strain your brain on this one.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

"ourselves" = Americans

"others" = non-Americans

Seriously, don't strain your brain on this one.

So, you're talking specifically about protecting Americans from non-Americans, not protecting Americans from themselves (as in, protecting me from me). There is a HUGE difference politically.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

So, you're talking specifically about protecting Americans from non-Americans, not protecting Americans from themselves (as in, protecting me from me). There is a HUGE difference politically.

Why would you ever assume that me, being the conservative that you know I am, would want the government (of all entities) to protect me from me?

Come on man, you know me better than this. I mean, Jajae picked up on it

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Why would you ever assume that me, being the conservative that you know I am, would want the government (of all entities) to protect me from me?

Come on man, you know me better than this. I mean, Jajae picked up on it

It was "Conservatives" that started the War on Drugs. So I don't take shit for granted anymore.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It was "Conservatives" that started the War on Drugs. So I don't take shit for granted anymore.

I'm fairly positive our government doesn't care much about recreational drug users. But I'm also fairly certain that the war on drugs is about keeping drugs from entering into our country, as well as kingpins in the distribution scheme. Those people hurt us, and our government is justified in doing their best to keep it from happening.

When my friend was hooked, they didn't arrest him, despite being in his house, knowing he was doing crack. Why didn't they arrest him? Cause it's not their job to get this one crackhead help (save him from himself) but it's their job to keep people from giving him the crack in the first place (allowing others to hurt him)

Why's that hard to understand? I think that falls under what I've stated (as the government's job) pretty fairly.

[Ardentfrost]

That's silly, it's the fact that it is illegal that brings in the kingpins. Prohibition proves that. And the fact that there were no kingpins before the stuff was illegal (it hasn't even been a century yet).

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That's silly, it's the fact that it is illegal that brings in the kingpins. Prohibition proves that. And the fact that there were no kingpins before the stuff was illegal (it hasn't even been a century yet).

Organized crime always needs someone to organize it (ie kingpins)

That doesn't lessen the fact that it's a crime. By your reasoning, you could argue that all things illegal and committed by organized crime (ie extortion, laundering, fraud, theft, murder, etc) should be legal, so we wouldn't have to deal with the mob. After all, those crimes aren't going away either, are they? Just like drugs aren't going anywhere?

[Ardentfrost]

exacerbating it by making something nonviolent criminal is not the way to go about it. And one human trying to take away any basic right of another human can never be legal (eg., all your other examples).

[Fed Up]

I won't be back till next year to debate anyone on their candidate, but I'll leave with these thoughts on the latests posts....

Suffice to say that on the subject of conservatism and the Old Republicans, Rothbard wrote about it in his book, "The Betrayal of the American Right." Yesterday's fighting the evil of communism is today's battle cry of Islamofacism.

As far as the neocons taking things over from beyond the late 50's that Rothbard wrote about, it is traced in the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" which you can watch the three, one hour segments online for free by Googling it. Pay close attention to how the media is/was involved.

Ron Paul spoke of these guys when he was interviewed today on either "Morning Joe" or "Fox and Friends," I forget.

The Glenn Beck, one hour interview went very well. Of course they try to bash Paul continually on Michelle Malkin's "Hot Air." I'd sign up and refute their non-sense, but she doesn't allow anyone new to post comments. She's a real free market gal eh? (I still post on her WWW.MICHELEMALKIN.COM site though: Michelle Malkin » The Spanish-language panderfest, sprinkled with Ron Paul’s Blame America act (”We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world”)

and

Michelle Malkin » The Iowa GOP Debate: “A little snappier, gentlemen!;” Update Fred Thompson’s not playing the “hand show;” Update: Aggghhh! The GOP candidates are all turning green; Update: Where’s the Hucka-pile-

Of course I received zero responses...she and her groupies can't handle the truth!

Merry Christmas.... and if you donate to Ron Paul by the end of the year, you receive a nice income tax deduction off of this years taxes!

Fed Up

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'm fairly positive our government doesn't care much about recreational drug users. But I'm also fairly certain that the war on drugs is about keeping drugs from entering into our country, as well as kingpins in the distribution scheme. Those people hurt us, and our government is justified in doing their best to keep it from happening.

When my friend was hooked, they didn't arrest him, despite being in his house, knowing he was doing crack. Why didn't they arrest him? Cause it's not their job to get this one crackhead help (save him from himself) but it's their job to keep people from giving him the crack in the first place (allowing others to hurt him)

Why's that hard to understand? I think that falls under what I've stated (as the government's job) pretty fairly.

What about selling alcohol? Fatty foods? What happened to 'personal responsibility' you conservatives always drone on about?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

but it's their job to keep people from giving him the crack in the first place (allowing others to hurt him)

How is that government staying out of the way of people being able to make their own decisions?

If he wants to put something into his body, why should the government be telling him he can't by making the substance illegal?

That's exactly the nanny-state mentality you say you're against.. how can you have it both ways?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

How is that government staying out of the way of people being able to make their own decisions?

If he wants to put something into his body, why should the government be telling him he can't by making the substance illegal?

That's exactly the nanny-state mentality you say you're against.. how can you have it both ways?

Why should the government regulate the pharmaceutical industry then?

Conservatives don't like a nanny state, but they don't like total anarchy either.

[Ardentfrost]

We shouldn't regulate the pharma industry.