My real point was that the vast majority of RP supporters are were at one time or still are one of the things I listed; not that most have all or even a few of those traits. Most of the responses make sense, I guess I don't have to agree with someone on everything to agree with them on liberty.
You will never 100% agree with somebody. It's just the way things are. I once tried to look for the "perfect candidate" and it's impossible. The thing is to find somebody who you don't agree with on issues but philosophy.
But still, it feels weird to think about uniting with the groups of people I listed as I am pretty much the antithesis of everything such people espouse (aka I'm probably the most conservative person I know on any issue). It feels more comfortable to be with republicans whom I know I share my moral values with (altho the fact that few of the candidates stay true to the actual constitution is the reason I've been looking for a more viable candidate, right now Paul is definitely a consideration).
Isn't that what everybody is looking for? You're interested in a candidate which means he has said things you agree with and make sense to you I'm assuming. The fact is people from the other side are interested in him as well. Isn't it a good thing a candidate can bring people together from different backgrounds, ideas, political theories, and philosophies? If people are united, can't more get done?
To respond to Brick in particular as he started the thread, you are correct about social issues as the Constitution is silent on them, I don't contest that. It is a states rights issue, altho I would not be opposed to a life amendment to protect life for the unborn. I actually find not that opposed to Paul on the issue of marriage as his view is to keep government out of it altogether (I've always believed it should be done in churches as well). As for drugs, it would indeed save a lot of money if the federal government got out of that war and let the states handle it.
Alright we can agree on this.
Atheism is where I lose you. You turn into a moral relativist. Doing the run for life and volunteering are great imo, but there's no real objective basis for your morality. Besides how can you really define "being a good person" person without God. All relative, no agreement there. I don’t think I could live in a society of people like that where "goodness" is defined by the person.
The thing is I'm an Atheist supporting Ron Paul because our ideas aren't forced on one another. If I were President, I wouldn't ban the first amendment or ban Christianity. Regardless if you think morality comes from god or the survival of the fittest, the Constitution protects those, Christian or none, from their beliefs.
I believe everybody deserve life, liberty, and property and me trying to infringe on your beliefs would violate that.
The government must be put under the microscope indeed and yes it has made mistakes (and not just in foreign policy obviously). But the fact is there are a lot of RP supporters who think the Bush administration was behind the death of 3,000 Americans and the administration was filled with “glee”, as Paul puts it, after that event. That sickens me. While Bush had his policy problems like excessive spending, I would never go so far as to even hint at the idea that he was behind the attacks.
Yes, there are some even on this form that think it was an inside job. The thing is, ideas like this aren't new. I've heard from people in their 30's to 40's that their Yellow Dog Democrat parents went to their graves believing Nixon had Kennedy assassinated. Is that the same as Bush and 9/11? No but it shows that people have been skeptical of our government for a while and will put nothing past them.
I use to be of the "that's impossible so I'm not even going to look into it or debate the people" type. The thing is, what kind of person would I be if I didn't try to learn and shut my mind out? I've gone thru 9/11 and while many things make me raise my eyebrows, I don't believe explosives were placed in the WTC. If I just blew it off, if somebody challenged my view, I'd have no evidence or research that I've looked into to back up my claims.
As for the "glee" comment, there are actually some comments and reports out there that some in the Bush Administration were eager about going into Iraq very early and right around the time after 9/11.
Neo-con is leading in the poll, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that many progressives (as evidenced by the poll) support paul as well. The democratic party is the antithesis of my beliefs and if someone who supported those policies now supports the same guy I support, logically I feel something wrong is going on.
Isn't that some good credit to give to Ron Paul? As I said above, here's a candidate that you're interested in and he's bringing in people you're opposed to.
Finally with drugs: most of those who have been on highly addictive drugs will tell you the craving never truly goes away. By allowing things like heroin and cocaine to be freely sold, many will unwillingly be tricked into addictions that they will have no control of (for example 98% of heroin users are addicted after the first use). And marijuana is not a completely harmless drug as many make it up to be. It’s mentally addictive, has lingering effects and greatly impairs driving ability (think school bus drivers), is a huge gateway drug, raises the risk of heart attack greatly while high, has much more carcinogens than a cigarette when consumed in its most common method of consumption, etc etc. And yes alcohol and tobacco are both drugs and dangerous. But the solution is not to allow for more dangerous drugs to be legally bought and sold, addicting more people and enslaving them (as opposed to the argument that there is more liberty to let people use drugs). Bush and Rush both used drugs but both greatly regret that decision and advise others against doing them as opposed to libertarians who think anyone and everyone can buy/ sell any drug/substance. As for the govt having a pension on medical marijuana, that’s ridiculous imo. Besides, synthetic marinol exists and defeats the argument that cancer patients need smokeable pot.
I don't want to turn this into a debate on the War on Drugs. I have all sorts of links and studies that I can post but I'll try to break this down.
Let us look at guns and gun control.
We hear arguments that guns cause violent crime, more deaths, and are a danger to society. The thing is in places they're banned, crime goes up. We look at the other side with drugs and we see the collapse of society, crime, deaths, and such but the ban doesn't work.
I know, the second amendment of the Constitution gives us the right to firearms yet that didn't stop the D.C. gun ban or the one in Chicago. Does the government have the right to come into your home and take a firearm you own? To switch that to the other side, does the government have the right to go into somebody's home?
If somebody is under the influence of something, gets on the road, and kills somebody, they're taking their right to life and should be punished. Somebody who does drugs in their home is not harming another's right to life or liberty. The same way somebody with a gun in their home isn't putting somebody's right to life or liberty at risk.
It's the same thing with religion. We have the right to religion and free speech. What happens if we feel something is a danger and threat? Westboro Baptist Church spews hate and protest at soldiers funerals. What if we pass a law to protect these soldier's families and any church that spews anti-gay hate messages can't protest? What if we go a little further and ban certain Christian churches because they're at risk? What if we ban certain words and languages? Once we do, what's to stop us from going further?
That's the thing with Ron Paul. He's for protecting everybody's right to life, liberty, and property.
I cannot and will not govern you. Why? I, as an individual, am responsible for me and only me. If I want to own a gun for protection, that's my right. However if I'm out in my front yard waving it around, it goes off, and hits you across the street, that's my fault.
Would it be right of the government to then pass a ban saying nobody can carry a gun in their front yard? Why should you be punished for my actions? I'm the one who screwed up, I'm the one who would be taken to court, and I would be the one who would be punished. Because I took my rights for granted doesn't mean yours should be restricted. The same goes for drinking. I can drink in my house but getting into a car and going on the road puts your life in danger and I should be punished.
I mean, there are many things many of us disagree with but if you believe in liberty, you believe in the freedom of others. Personally, I think it's sick for mothers to put their five year old daughters into beauty pageants and wrong on many levels. The thing is, it's not my child and I have no right to tell them what to do. Just the way many people feel that others shouldn't tell them how to raise their children.
When it comes to freedom, the individual is the one with the greatest power because giving it to others to be fair can lead to very bad things. I know what's best for myself and you know what's best for you. I don't know and will never know what's best for you and I shouldn't have the power to run your life. As long as you're not restricting my rights or threatening my life, you should be free to do as you please.
