Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[texsativa]

Proud to say Ron Paul is from Texas.

 

[Plant Early]

 

[Cojito]

some folks need a nanny to help them know drugs are bad mmmmmmkay

some call it religion.

 

[dagnabit]

some call it religion.

they all call it a sinny sin sin

 

[greenmatter]

meth and male prostitutes are used to focus on the family ......... but it's all forgiven

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

How does consensual sex between consenting adults conjure aspirations of moral judgement?

Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton and won a big Viagra contract. First thing you know, male lawmakers made insurance companies cover Viagra under major medical plans. After that, women complained that contraception should be covered as well. 28 states passed laws that mandated insurance companies cover contraceptives.

While the "states rights" mantra might explain the nationalized kerfuffle, that's not the case. Catholic bishops are making it a religious issue and IMO that's hypocritical. Even Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney have voted for or signed into law, family planning measures.

But there's a damn Democrat is in the White House and dammit, he ain't white.

 

[Cojito]

they all worship the majic cloud man and his zombie son.

perhaps. but republicans take that stupidity to a whole other level.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I don't consider organized religion a pariah. Some folks still include religion along with politics as off limits to mixed-company discussion. They can go in church and fall out every week for all I care. Religion arguably makes some folks better people.

It's the limited class of candidates and lawmakers shoving their beliefs and their judgement down our throats that's particularly disgusting.

 

[greenmatter]

moral judgement ........... WTF?

one of focus on the family's head gas bags (arguably largest gas bag) gets caught doing meth and male prostitutes in his free time

the only judgement i am making is judging that as funny as hell.

i thought we were talking about drugs and religion there for a minute ........... i did not even consider who was in the white house

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

moral judgement ........... WTF?

one of focus on the family's head gas bags (arguably largest gas bag) gets caught doing meth and male prostitutes in his free time

the only judgement i am making is judging that as funny as hell.

i thought we were talking about drugs and religion there for a minute ........... i did not even consider who was in the white house

Wasn't keying on your comment. Ron Paul says that non-baby making sex is immoral.

 

[MadBuddhaAbuser]

Wasn't keying on your comment. Ron Paul says that non-baby making sex is immoral.

And is the only candidate who doesn't force his opinions on others. So I gotta ask

 

[Cojito]

I don't consider organized religion a pariah.

maybe you should. believing in the irrational is the definition of insanity. now if a given holy book is really the perfect word of god then of course we should embrace it, or burn for eternity. but if it's not, it's not. and we should not be paying any attention to its lunatic followers. faith, believing in the unreal, the irrational, should be a pariah in our culture.

life is hard, and we need to be listening to (and electing) reasonable people.

It's the limited class of candidates and lawmakers shoving their beliefs and their judgement down our throats that's particularly disgusting.

it is disgusting. but as long as they keep getting applause and delegates for saying these things, they'll keep at it.

 

[Snout]

Wanted to say, good call on the "death to" mantra. I read that Iraqi machine gunners went awol after killing so many Iranians the Iraqis said were charging them with sticks and rocks. Iran has come a long way since then and they may have that nuclear capability everybody's worries about. But if they want to go after Israel in a nuclear game, they might as well chuck rocks.

We don't mess with N Korea because they have nukes in proximity to S Korea and Japan. Lots of folks could die in the opening salvos of conventional warfare.

A nuclear attack is IMO out of the question. It's to keep the US from doing to N Korea what we did to Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. IMO, Iran wants something to keep the US off the preemptive invasion path.

I won't oversimplify the down sides of Iran having nukes. But IMO we're no where near justified using offensive military options and I don't anticipate Iran's that dumb to give us justification to dump a load of hurt.

Ferkin military industrial complex and biblical prophecy - combining to ensure we'll probably fuck up sooner than later.

Agree 100 percent. Also Jerusalem is one of the top "holy" sites to Muslims so that's another reason they wont nuke them imo.
Iran cannot even refine their own oil.

 

[Cojito]

Dude.......portugal?

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portuga
2012 Forbes.com LLC™
Sections

7/05/2011 @ 3:09PM | 225,064 views Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal

“ Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users —had fallen by half since the early 1990s when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

good catch. now i just gotta learn to speak Portuguese.

 

[whodare]

Wasn't keying on your comment. Ron Paul says that non-baby making sex is immoral.

Now I get it your just repeating some Lawrence odonnel bs, such a parrot.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article9417-ron-paul-a-true-libertarian-no-laws-legislating-morality.html

On Thursday, February 23, 2012, the day after the last Republican debate, Lawrence O’Donnell, a self-declared “Socialist” attempted to make the case that Ron Paul is a “Fake Libertarian” because he believes that sex outside of marriage is immoral. *Funny, during the debate over The Pill, I actually 100% EXPECTED Ron Paul to make that very claim; that it is not “contraception” that is the problem, but the moral driving-force that makes people want to use it.* Ron Paul is a Christian, this is well known.* Ron Paul is also a TRUE Libertarian, and as such he engaged in his First Amendment Right to express his OPINION, which is based on his Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs.* Ron Paul DID NOT, EVER ONCE, say that he would LEGISLATE HIS MORAL VIEWS ON ANY AMERICAN.*

Lawrence O’Donnell chose to reference Penn Jillette, a well-known “Libertarian” to make his case, citing Jillette’s “sex positive” attitude.* That’s great!* Ironic that “sex positive” is a term coined by women in the sex-industry who have been fighting against the forces of LIBERAL “feminists” who believe that the sex-industry is “anti-feminist” and “IMMORAL!”* I side 100% with the sex-positive, pro-porn, pro-prostitution women who CHOOSE to go into that field of work by their own FREE WILL.* Ironic, since SO DOES RON PAUL!* More ironic, it is O’Donnell’s allies on the LEFT who are so intent on keeping the sex-industry over-regulated and illegal by claiming that it “subjugates” women for the benefit of men.* Yeah, Rick Santorum wants to keep it illegal too, but I’m the LAST person who will be defending that dick-head; but it is the “liberal feminists” who try to LEGISLATE THEIR VIEW OF MORALITY on the rest of us who are the REAL THREAT to society, especially since the Religious-Right has already lost their public-approval battle, so they are not truly a threat to me or anyone else.

Let’s get the definition of “Libertarian” straight, once and for all!

A “Libertarian” is a HUMAN, first and foremost, and by their very nature ALL humans have PERSONAL OPINIONS, based on their life experiences, including religious beliefs and morals.* Therefore, when having a personal discussion with a self-declared “Libertarian” one is bound to hear every version of what one may or may not consider “moral” from the far-Left to the far-Right.

A “Libertarian” is a TRUE Libertarian if, and ONLY IF he or she is 100% willing to set aside his or her own personal views when it comes to THE LAW and how any legislation will interfere with an INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT to make his or her own decisions based on his or her OWN PERSONAL moral views.

Therefore, a pro-gay Libertarian does NOT support “gay-marriage” or any other kind of “marriage” because, first “marriage” is NOT in the Constitution at all, but more importantly, government-sanctioned “marriage” by definition devalues the INDIVIDIUAL, and the Constitution specifically protects each of us as an INDIVIDUAL, not “couples” or “triples” or pairs or whatever else “marriage” may eventually come to encompass.* On the flip-side, an anti-gay libertarian would NEVER justify the government defining “marriage” as between one man and one woman, for the same reason.* A TRUE Libertarian believes in CONTRACT LAW – that ANY two or more consenting persons can enter into a contract, thereby CHOOSING to share their benefits and wealth with whomever he or she chooses.* The Government’s ONLY ROLE is to PROTECT the CONTRACT between those INDIVIDUALS.* So, no, the government cannot make any laws that prevent or force one individual from sharing benefits or visiting each other in the hospital.* As for children, again, the CONTRACT rules, and if two or more people agree to share responsibility for the children, then the government’s ONLY ROLE is to make sure that all parties uphold their end of the contract.* “Marriage” can only be defined and recognized by religious institutions INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE!

So, regarding marriage, Ron Paul, who defends INDIVIDUALS, not “groups,” and CONTRACTS, is a TRUE Libertarian, whereas Gary Johnson, who wants the GOVERNMENT to DEFINE “gay-marriage” as a “Constitutional Right” is DEAD WRONG!* As for The Defense of Marriage Act, Ron Paul only supported it because as long as the Federal Government insists on recognizing “marriage,” then DOMA is the only way to protect the First Amendment of religious institutions, where “marriage” itself Constitutionally belongs.* It was a bad bill, but as long as the Federal government refuses to uphold the Constitution and GET OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS, then he had no real choice but to support it.* DOMA was the only, albeit highly contorted, way to uphold the Constitution against an unconstitutional law (state marriage certification).

As for sex, drugs and morality, Ron Paul is a very socially-conservative person PERSONALLY, yet he is 100% against ANY laws that outlaw such activity.* So, he supports legalized prostitution and drugs.* How many of Lawrence O’Donnell’s buddies on the Left can actually make that claim?

As for Abortion, this is where Libertarians differ, and legitimately.* This was O’Donnell’s other big beef against Ron Paul; that he is anti-abortion.* Well, gee, Ron Paul is an actual OB/GYN, and therefore he personally knows for a FACT that abortion is the murder of a LIFE, so he is opposed to it.* I happen to agree with Ron Paul, that abortion IS murder, but no matter how I come at it, I just cannot justify the government making abortion illegal (although I do agree that Roe vs. Wade was a violation of State’s Rights).* Libertarians For Life believe that the fetus has EQUAL RIGHTS to any born human being, and this is a legitimate legal (and scientific) claim.* Some Libertarians view the women’s right to privacy over the baby’s right to Life as more important.* That is why the Libertarian Party does NOT take a stand on either side in its platform.* Personally, I side with the Right to Privacy, and as a woman, I do not see it as a “woman’s” Right anymore than I see the raising of children as a Parental (not societal / community / governmental) Right, and Parental Rights are an extension of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, and ALL Individuals have a Right to PRIVACY from government interference in ALL aspects of their lives, whether in their bedroom, backyard or doctor’s office.

Never-mind that Judge Andrew Napolitano is an unapologetic Pro-Life Libertarian, and I have never heard anyone question The Judge’s Libertarianism.* And his show was cancelled by Fox BECAUSE his truly Libertarian views were waking Americans up and that made him a THREAT to the Right-Left / Republican-Democrat *CORPORA-FASCIST *STATE!

As far as I am concerned, a TRUE Libertarian proves him or herself by actively opposing any legislation that upholds his or her own PERSONAL views, because a TRUE Libertarian understands that “morality” can NEVER be legislated by the government, but can only be PROTECTED by the government when the government STAYS OUT of ALL our PRIVATE LIVES, and diligently upholds the First Amendment by letting religious institutions and individuals FREELY EXPRESS THEIR OWN BELIEFS.

So, O’Donnell, I must say, you are DEAD WRONG!* Penn Jillette may very well be “sex-positive,” but unlike your brethren on the Left who dictate that children MUST be provided with sex “education,” contraceptives and abortions WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT, thereby imposing their own view that teen sex is “empowering” and “moral,” Penn Jillette does NOT advocate LEGISLATING his PERSONAL BELIEFS on ANYONE ELSE!

O’Donnell, you are a self-proclaimed “Socialist.”* In reality you and you Liberal-Elite friends are nothing more than FASCISTS who seek to OUTLAW any concept of “morality” with which you disagree.

O’Donnell, to be quite frank, according to your logic, the definition of a “Libertarian” is simply someone who is pro-sex.* No, not just pro-sex, but pro-EXTRAMARITAL sex.* Honestly, I hate Liberals and Socialists, but even I would NEVER lay such a blanket statement across them, just because the MOST VOCAL Leftists happen to be pro-extramarital sex. **And sorry, not ALL Conservatives or Republicans are anti-sex as you and Rick Santorum would like the world to believe; that I know for a FACT, personally!* Honestly, O’Donnell, you simply prove my point that there is NO DIFFERENCE between you and Rick Santorum:* You both SCARE THE BLOODY HELL OUT OF ME!

Personally, I would love for Penn Jillette to debate you FACE-TO-FACE on just what it REALLY means to be a Libertarian.

*

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Now I get it your just repeating some Lawrence odonnel bs, such a parrot.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article9417-ron-paul-a-true-libertarian-no-laws-legislating-morality.html

Yep, Lawrence O'Donnell kidnapped Ron Paul, put on a Ron Paul suit and went down to da debate show. When Rick says contraceptives are immoral, O'Donnell (in the Paul suit) says, "It's the sex that's immoral."

The lengths peeps go to deny reality.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ron Paul wrote Republicans a scathing letter, letting the party know that Reagan was no better than status quote republicans. Paul included his party membership-card in the envelope. That was back in the 80s before Ron Paul ran as the libertarian candidate for president. He received 0.47% of the popular vote.

Not long after the election, Rothbard, Rockwell and Paul left the Libertarian party in a huff. In '95 Paul not only goes back to republicans, he speaks fondly of Ronald Reagan. I bet there's at least one recent youtube floating around with Paul declaring he's a Reagan conservative.

 

[whodare]

The lengths peeps go to deny reality.

You've shown youre willing to ignore the fact he has never voted to infringe on what he believes are your individual rights including pre-marital sex.

You are such a joke its sad

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I see it as a conflict when a libertarian passes judgement on something as arcane as non-procreative sex. Penn Gillette will have a field day. It's an old misogynist way of life that says a man can wear a rubber, pull out or demand a blow job because he doesn't want that baby. His wife is subject to his moral scrutiny if she decides to take the pill, wear an IUD or push the fuck head off before he dumps.

Lawrence kinda evaporated when you realized Paul actually said it - on national television. There goes a potential chunk of women voters for Ron Paul.


You passing out the anonymous reps too, whoodie?

 

[whodare]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/22/se.05.html

KING: So let's focus the time -- let's focus the time we spend on this on the role of the president and your personal views and question the role of government.

And Senator Santorum, this has come up -- yes, it has come up because of the president's decision in the campaign. It's also come up because of some of the things you have said on the campaign trail. When you were campaigning in Iowa, you told an evangelical blog, if elected, you will talk about what, quote, "no president has talked about before -- the dangers of contraception." Why?

SANTORUM: What I was talking about is we have a society -- Charles Murray just wrote a book about this and it's on the front page of "The New York Times" two days ago, which is the increasing number of children being born out of wedlock in America, teens who are sexually active.

What we're seeing is a problem in our culture with respect to children being raised by children, children being raised out of wedlock, and the impact on society economically, the impact on society with respect to drug use and all -- a host of other things when children have children.

And so, yes, I was talking about these very serious issues. And, in fact, as I mentioned before, two days ago on the front page of "The New York Times", they're talking about the same thing. The bottom line is we have a problem in this country, and the family is fracturing.

Over 40 percent of children born in America are born out of wedlock. How can a country survive if children are being raised in homes where it's so much harder to succeed economically? It's five times the rate of poverty in single-parent households than it is in two-parent homes. We can have limited government, lower tax -- we hear this all the time, cut spending, limit the government, everything will be fine. No, everything's not going to be fine.

There are bigger problems at stake in America. And someone has got to go out there -- I will -- and talk about the things.

And you know what? Here's the difference.

The left gets all upset. "Oh, look at him talking about these things." You know, here's the difference between me and the left, and they don't get this. Just because I'm talking about it doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it.

That's what they do. That's not what we do.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Congressman Paul?

PAUL: As an OB doctor, I've dealt with birth control pills and contraception for a long time. This is a consequences of the fact the government has control of medical care and medical insurance, and then we fight over how we dictate how this should be distributed, sort of like in schools. Once the government takes over the schools, especially at the federal level, then there's no right position, and you have to argue which prayer, are you allowed to pray, and you get into all the details.

The problem is the government is getting involved in things they shouldn't be involved in, especially at the federal level.

(APPLAUSE)

But sort of along the line of the pills creating immorality, I don't see it that way. I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don't blame the pills.

I think it's sort of like the argument -- conservatives use the argument all the time about guns. Guns don't kill, criminals kill.

(APPLAUSE)

So, in a way, it's the morality of society that we have to deal with. The pill is there and, you know, it contributes, maybe, but the pills can't be blamed for the immorality of our society.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Governor, please.

ROMNEY: John, you know, I think as Rick has just said, this isn't an argument about contraceptives, this is a discussion about, are we going to have a nation which preserves the foundation of the nation, which is the family, or are we not? And Rick is absolutely right.

When you have 40 percent of kids being born out of wedlock, and among certain ethnic groups the vast majority being born out of wedlock, you ask yourself, how are we going to have a society in the future? Because these kids are raised in poverty in many cases, they're in abusive settings. The likelihood of them being able to finish high school or college drops dramatically in single-family homes. And we haven't been willing to talk about this.

And when we have programs that say we're going to teach abstinence in schools, the liberals go crazy and try and stop us from doing that. We have to have a president who's willing to say that the best opportunity an individual can give to their unborn child is an opportunity to be born in a home with a mother and a father. And I think --

(APPLAUSE)

KING: It's an issue on which all of you have criticism on the Obama administration, it's an issue on which some of you have also criticized each other.

Governor Romney, both Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have said during your tenure as governor, you required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

And Mr. Speaker, you compared the president to President Obama, saying he infringed on Catholics' rights.

Governor, did you do that?

ROMNEY: No, absolutely not. Of course not.

There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. That was entirely voluntary on their report. There was no such requirement.

Likewise, in Massachusetts health care bill, there's a provision in Massachusetts general laws that says people don't have to have coverage for contraceptives or other type of medical devices which are contrary to their religious teachings. Churches also don't have to provide that to entities which are either the church themselves or entities they control. So we have provisions that make sure that something of that nature does not occur.

That's why when I worked closely with the leaders of the Catholic Church, I met with the cardinal a number of times, and with his emissaries. We talked about the issues we were concerned about.

We battled, for instance, to help the Catholic Church stay in the adoption business. The amazing thing was that while the Catholic Church was responsible for half the adoptions in my state -- half the adoptions -- they had to get out of that business because the legislature wouldn't support me and give them an exemption from having to place children in homes where there was a mom and a dad on a preferential basis.

Absolutely extraordinary. We have to have individuals that will stand up for religious conscience, and I did and I will again as president.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Well, the reports we got were quite clear that the public health department was prepared to give a waiver to Catholic hospitals about a morning-after abortion pill, and that the governor's office issued explicit instructions saying that they believed it wasn't possible under Massachusetts law to give them that waiver. Now, that was the newspaper reports that came out. That's something that both Senator Santorum and I have raised before. But I want to go a step further, because this makes a point that Ron Paul has been making for a generation and that people need to take very seriously.

When you have government as the central provider of services, you inevitably move towards tyranny, because the government has the power of force.

(APPLAUSE)

You inevitably -- and I think this is true whether it's Romneycare or Obamacare or any other government centralized system -- you inevitably move towards the coercion of the state and the state saying, "If you don't do what we, the politicians, have defined, you will be punished either financially or you will be punished in some other way like going to jail."

And that's why we are, I think, at an enormous crossroads in this country. And I think the fact is, for almost all of us who have been at this for any length of time, we're now looking at an abyss that forces you to change what you may once have thought -- and I suspect all four of us are much more worried today about the power of the state than we would have been -- with the possible exception of Congressman Paul -- than we would have been at any point in the last 25 years.

PAUL: John...

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Congressman, please.

PAUL: ... have a quick follow-up?

(APPLAUSE) You know, we talk about the morning-after pill. Actually, the morning-after pill is nothing more than a birth control pill, so if birth control pills are on the market, the morning-after pill -- so if you're going to legalize birth control pills, you really -- you can't separate the two. They're all basically the same, hormonally.

But once again, the question is, if you voted for Planned Parenthood like the senator has, you voted for birth control pills. And you literally, because funds are fungible, you literally vote for abortions because Planned Parenthood gets the money -- "Oh, I'll buy birth control pills," but then they have the money left over to do the abortion.

So that's why you have to have a pretty strong resistance of voting for these bunches of bills put together. Planned Parenthood should get nothing, let alone designate how they spend.

So where did he say any of what you are parroting from Lawrence?