I agree. Sadly, she might be the most principled of the Republicans running.
toldailytopic: What do you think of Michele Bachmann?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I agree. Sadly, she might be the most principled of the Republicans running.
Ron Paul supports individual liberty and accountability. More specifically, he believes drug use and prostitution are states rights issues. THe war on drugs in this country is a waste of a trillion dollars to date. Legalize them, the crime drops, the money is no longer wasted etc. Drug use was legal in this country for much longer than it was illegal and use was far less when it was legal.
You have to be kidding. Legalizing drugs will result in explosion of crimes.
Half of all murders are intoxication-related and 25% drug related. We have lost as many to drunk driving over the last 30 years as to murder.
So, more people high on drugs equates to more murder and more negligent deaths on the highways as well as more theft and assault as addicts seek drugs to feed their addiction.
There is a good reason why no nation on earth has ever been dumb enough to legalize all drugs.
You have to be kidding. Legalizing drugs will result in explosion of crimes.
Half of all murders are intoxication-related and 25% drug related. We have lost as many to drunk driving over the last 30 years as to murder.
So, more people high on drugs equates to more murder and more negligent deaths on the highways as well as more theft and assault as addicts seek drugs to feed their addiction.
There is a good reason why no nation on earth has ever been dumb enough to legalize all drugs.
drbrumley
Well-known member
:sigh:
From Mises:
The problems involved in direct government interference with consumption. . . concern the fundamental issues of human life and social organization. If it is true that government derives its authority from God and is entrusted by Providence to act as the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace, then it is certainly its task to regiment every aspect of the subject's conduct. The God-sent ruler knows better what is good for his wards than they do themselves. It is his duty to guard them against the harm they would inflict upon themselves if left alone.
Self-styled "realistic" people fail to recognize the immense importance of the principles implied. They contend that they do not want to deal with the matter from what, they say, is a philosophic and academic point of view. Their approach is, they argue, exclusively guided by practical considerations. . . .
However, the case is not so simple as that. Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.
These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naïve advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.
Self-styled "realistic" people fail to recognize the immense importance of the principles implied. They contend that they do not want to deal with the matter from what, they say, is a philosophic and academic point of view. Their approach is, they argue, exclusively guided by practical considerations. . . .
However, the case is not so simple as that. Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.
These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naïve advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.
Flipper
New member
I agree that the flower of American manhood is made up of carpetbagging fancylads and primping fops, almost without exception.
eameece
New member
I don't think much of her, and I don't think much about her.
some other dude
New member
eameece
New member
All Latin American leaders agree: legalize drugs. They all agree, the drug war causes many more murders. Solving an addiction problem by throwing addicts in jails, only busts the budgets of many states. You just deflated your argument by mentioning alcohol. If you think banning alcohol works, you should read your history a little more, or watch Ken Burns' program this Fall.
No, most murders are caused by the easy availability of guns; everyone knows that. There are also more murders in the South than anywhere else, even though they are the most conservative about drugs and alcohol. There is a culture of violence there, and there is also generally a culture of violence in the USA. Societies where drugs are legal have the least violence. The Netherlands for example.
Making drugs much more profitable by making them illegal, contributes mightily to the explosion of gang and criminal violence and turf wars. The illegal drug trade is the only means of making money for many young people in our cities. Instead of spending billions to put addicts in jail, spend a little less, and give them treatment or require them to take it.
And forget marijuana; sell it and tax it. Marijuana heals and relaxes people; legalize it.
I guess Ron Paul is right and Michelle Bachmann is wrong; that's the topic, right?
eameece
New member
I wonder how many conservatives in America are sexist, like serpentdove? How many (unlike him) don't admit it? How many don't admit that their opposition to abortion, is caused by their desire to keep women in their place of submission?
Freedom through murder?
A repeated and habitual liar is the best you guys can do? Nice job.
Actually, for once, SD's completely right. Bachmann was trapped by her own words, and she realized that her statement about submission might potentially raise some uncomfortable questions.
So, she did what she always does when she's pushed into a corner (other than ignoring the question): she lied. "Submission" does not mean "respect," and no amount of word twisting will ever change that. Bachmann's own words came back to haunt her, and she had a chance to either stand by them and demonstrate the courage of her convictions. Instead, she lied. That's what she does.
Choleric
New member
That is patently untrue. The only principled candidate is Paul. A simple check of their voting record would be sufficient to establish that.
Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.
It IS the duty of government to prevent citizens from engaging in negligent that harms other people. The only purpose for the use of recreational drugs is to get high and that endangers others.
Drug usage also diminishes the quality of life for everyone, not only by increasing crime and negligent death but also creating a subculture of unproductive drug addicts.
Drug legalization is simply a stupid idea.
It IS the duty of government to prevent citizens from engaging in negligent that harms other people. The only purpose for the use of recreational drugs is to get high and that endangers others.
Drug usage also diminishes the quality of life for everyone, not only by increasing crime and negligent death but also creating a subculture of unproductive drug addicts.
Drug legalization is simply a stupid idea.
Yes, Paul is principled -- a principled KOOK, unfit for office.
He doesn't recognize the threat Iran would pose if it gains nuclear weapons. Legalizing drugs and prostitution will further lead us down the road to becoming the Roman Empire.
Fortunately, he has no chance of being nominated or elected.
It is too bad she backed away from what she obviously believes and has practiced.
I don't know how much it will hurt, though. Those supporting care far more about what sort of stance she'll take to protect the lives of the unborn and against the homosexual agenda.
It sounds to me like he takes the Bible seriously and believes men should lead unless no qualified men can be found to lead.
That doesn't make him sexist.
If she lies and ducks a basic question why trust her?
eameece
New member
Sounds like a perfect definition to me. And thanks for admitting that you too, are a sexist. Maybe you'd prefer the 1st century AD?
Choleric
New member
Sounds like you have been listening to the anti-Paul propaganda. Unfit for office? Surely you are being sarcastic?
Lots of countries pose a threat to us now that already have a nuke. We are not the policemen of the world. It is stupid hype put out by the military industrial complex through the Republican party to incite wars. It is ridiculous, expensive, and terrible foreign policy.
No chance? Yep, you have been watching too much Fox. Yes, while FOX tries their best to ignore and downplay the significance of the Paul campaign, he is still winning polls and showing very well. Of course, if FOX would stop ignoring him, his chances would skyrocket.
I assume you are going to vote for Romney? Perry? Bachman? Just curious who you feel is fit for office if the most conservative Republican candidate doesn't quite meet your standards?
Choleric
New member
You might want to look up "prohibition". Pretty much destroys any argument you can muster about making something illegal.