If Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul changed his position on the legality/illegality of recreational drugs how much would his support drop? Or would it, his support, increase?
1) He would never do that.
2) That just wouldn't happen.
3) Nope, not gonna happen
4) Even in 30+ years of public office, that has never happened.
5) Could it happen? The answer is no.
With that being said, his support would PLUMMET!!!!
Why? No No No -it's not because Paul fans are pot-smoking hippies who are, like, totally stoned all the time, man.
It's because this would mean that he does NOT believe in the Constitution anymore. It would mean that he gave up on the principles of the 10th amendment, and the Anti-Federalist mentality.
I know I would stop voting for him, and the last time I did an illegal drug was some 15 years ago. It was a comPLETE waste of time.
The people who support Ron Paul are principled, just like he is.
... you ask a question...
... a question about ALL Ron Paul fans....
... and then you...
... you get mad at me...
... for answering...
... in a way that...
... that addresses the very group that you brought up to begin with...
You: "Are all libertarians dumb?"
Me: "No, not all libertarians are dumb!"
You: "LIAR!! YOU HAVEN'T MET EVERY SINGLE LIBERTARIAN!!!!!"
ummm ..I never said Libertarians are dumb...obviously not ... I just disagree with their point of view. The point of my question was how much of the enthusiasm for Ron Paul, especially on High School and College campuses, was based on the Libertarian ideal of keeping the government out of personal behavior choices. My response to you was simply a retort to you about your sweeping generalization. I am sure there are many principled and sincere Paul supporters--as you appear to be. I do believe, however, that the much support of the Libertarian position -- in the age group I mentioned--is based at least in part on the legalization of drugs...I am not even judging that opinion, I am just curious...
Right - your question is "what are ron paul fans like in general".
Then I answered "this is what they are in general"
then you responded with "you haven't met them all, jerk."
So. You clearly are just launching a smear against Paul.
Good luck. The other "entire media establishment" has failed each time they've tried to smear him, I'm sure you're forum will do the trick.
I never used or implied the word jerk...As I said this is about the motivation of a large subset of Paul's supporters and was not intent on smearing anyone -- Paul or his supporters.. As for this forum I really doubt the five posters opinions will be affected by this feeble little conversation., Obviously you consumption for the Ron Paul/Libertarian/Austrian Economics has made objectivity an impossibility.....and by the way I am awed by your sarcasm....grow up a bit
If my "consumption for the Ron Paul/Libertarian/Austrian Economics has made objectivity an impossibility", then why bother asking the question?
If you ask a question about Dinosaurs, you don't go studying fish.
Allow me to conduct a survey in the same way you have done here:
Step one: Ask, on a public forum, "Do black people vote for Obama because he's black?"
Step two: Whenever a black person answers, OR an Obama fan answers, ignore them and just say "well you obviously taint the results because you're an Obama supporter / are black".
Step three: When someone is NOT black, or is not a Obama supporter, brush them aside. (the metaphor here is your response to Reality Bytes)
Step four: openly agree with people who think that, yes, black people vote for Obama because he's black.
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to further this discussion. You're clearly an uber-biased troll.
When did you loose contact with reality ..... or are you off your meds
It is impossible for you to speak for all Paul supporters -- I would gather that is is unlikely, given the intensity of you beliefs, that you are unlikely to even have a statistically representative cross-section sample of Paul voters.
In order to beat you to the punch and save you time ... I will stipulate that I cannot talk about a cross-section of Obama voters, as I am stupid and uninformed ...and the "uber-biased" seems to apply more to you ... unless this really is some sort of brain chemistry problem
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html
Ruh Rho Rorge!!
Well that is the kind of stuff you do when you're high.
The joke about this is that her statement really doesn't mean anything.
"It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product..."
EVERYONE got to see the final product.
"He would proof it". This came after a series of "...". Unfortunately, what comes inside the "..." is kind of important. Is she talking about one, many, all?
This is just a "he said, she said" argument. Until you have more, it's really not worthy of discussion.
Everything else is old news.
The Svengali-like power he has over you is quite amusing.
I disagree with him on numerous subjects. "He's not libertarian enough" is generally where we disagree.
But you're really just putting up a "he-said, she-said" argument that's some 20 years old on this forum.
... so... good luck!
Speaking strictly as a conservative, not a Republican or a Libertarian and mostly, not as a Paul supporter, I find this a very interesting question. Introducing another intoxicant into a society already unable to curb its over indulgence in alcohol is problematic. However, pot isn't nearly as tasty as a good scotch. I don't have a problem with the decriminalization of pot. Nor do I have a problem with allowing adults to do what they will, with the admonition that no one is harmed. But that is the rub, we are often harmed by things we do not perceive as harmful.
If the sole problem in America was the drug trade, I would vote to end it through decriminalization, but that is not the paramount issues.
You have just stated a liberal position quite eloquently, much as Herman Cain did regarding abortion.
Perhaps that is why he has disappeared from the race, not the "ladies." As for it being a liberal position - I have only one remark. If you think that heavy alcohol use, gambling, dope smoking, prostitution, promiscuity, homosexuality are all totally and thoroughly harmless than, we will disagree. There are long time cultural taboos, admonitions against and norms restricting these activities for a reason. There are harms to our nature and to ourselves that are not so easily perceived.
It is precisely because they are not easy to discern that makes them resistant to legal restriction. To subject flawed character to the state's machinery is to court tyranny. The state is effective when its laws govern immorality of the obvious variety - murder, theft, battery, etc.... It is wholly inadequate to governing immorality of a more intimate or personal nature. These are best controlled by social/cultural remedies.
That should dispel any notion that I endorse anything liberal.
Actually, his response was libertarian.
"Leave people to make their own mistakes so long as they don't interfere with others' property rights"
It is not about the legalization of drugs. It is about personal freedom and responsibility. Drugs just happen to fall under Personal Freedoms.
People who understand liberty understand that drug prohibition does not work and violates our freedom of choice. So Ron Paul's supporters, who staunchly believe in liberty, would be less inclined to vote for him if he turned around on his drug policy. There is no point in trying to please the old conservative base that approves of drug prohibition if you're going to lose your base that understands liberty. He would not do that.
Don't worry, if Paul loses he can apply for sainthood...
Perhaps he and Barry can apply at the same time.
Unlike some Paul supporters, I see Obama as human and capable of mistakes
I'm going to keep an open mind about all the candidates but as far as Ron Paul is concerned, I just watched a video of some predictions he made back in 2002 and everyone of them were spot on!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFLd_H3AZCA
If nothing else, Paul has a full grasp on where this country is moving. We only have to decide if we want to be a blockade or an instrument of that movement.
That was hardly the common view among Democrat voters in 2008. They wanted to remain blind and ignorant of his humanity and replace it with divinity. There was more than one beatific depiction of Obama in the press, in interviews, in photos, videos and art.
by Jason Menayan5 years ago
It strikes me that there are 2 distinct types of people voting in the Republican primaries and caucuses: partisans and libertarians.The partisans are about 80%; they might have their favorite candidate, but in the end,...
by 910chris5 years ago
Over the last couple of days a lot of media attention has gone towards a conspiracy theory involving Ron Paul and Mitt Romney banding together. They seem to be pushing it pretty hard which in my mind means that...
by Reality Bytes5 years ago
Politics do make for some interesting arrangements. I have just heard that a bill was introduced by the two Congressmen to decriminalize marijuana.Finally a bipartisan effort on...
by Doodlehead4 years ago
According to Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul has plans to lead the Liberty Caucus Republicanswhen he resigns in December. Lew says Dr. Paul has kept his typical low profileuntil he is out of Congress. ...
by mio cid5 years ago
Is Ron Paul giving birth to a movement that can develop into a full fledged political party?Maybe attracting real independents not the pseudo independents that are really just to the left of the democratic party or to...
by DTR00056 years ago
http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/t … sm-america
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.