• Welcome to the Off-Topic/Schweb's Lounge

    In addition to the Mac-Forums Community Guidelines, there are a few things you should pay attention to while in The Lounge.

    Lounge Rules
    • If your post belongs in a different forum, please post it there.
    • While this area is for off-topic conversations, that doesn't mean that every conversation will be permitted. The moderators will, at their sole discretion, close or delete any threads which do not serve a beneficial purpose to the community.

    Understand that while The Lounge is here as a place to relax and discuss random topics, that doesn't mean we will allow any topic. Topics which are inflammatory, hurtful, or otherwise clash with our Mac-Forums Community Guidelines will be removed.

Why I can't support Ron Paul...

Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
748
Reaction score
32
Points
28
Your Mac's Specs
2.16 Core 2 Duo, 160GB HD, 2gb RAM, Black Macbook | iPhone | OS X Leopard
"Like the Founding Fathers, the core of my political philosophy is grounded in the knowledge that rights come from the Creator, not the government. Since rights do not come from the gov't, the gov't cannot violate those rights. Religion has a very important role to play in a limited gov't philosophy."
- Ron Paul

I just can't bring myself to support someone who in essence, doesn't believe in the Social Contract Theory. Who's "creator" are we supposed to base our rights on? This is not a solely Christian country.

I don't understand why so many people have come to support him.

Please enlighten me with lively but controlled debate.
 

eric


Retired Staff
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
447
Points
83
Location
twin cities, mn, usa
well, since he is simply echoing the declaration of independence, and he does seem to be religious, you can't really fault him. i think he is simply trying to state that all people are 'created' equal, and the government has no right to bias any laws for or against anyone based on any natural part of a person such as their color, sexual orientation, origin, beliefs, etc.

and while i am agnostic myself, and am a bit unnerved by some people who believe what they want to in any given religious text and omit anything that doesn't fit their lifestyle or comfort zone, i don't get the feeling that Ron Paul is coming from a creepy place at all (theologically speaking ;P ).
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Central Florida
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro Unibody
I personally don't really like some of the stances that Ron Paul takes, but if it is between him and Clinton or Obama or another Neo-Conservative than I will push for him. I am also touchy on religious issues, being that I don't want my government to shove it down my throat what I should and shouldn't do or believe.

Why I like Ron Paul: Wants to end a lot of the "wars". War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Poverty (don't really agree with this one). Basically wants to reclaim alot of WASTED taxpayer money that statistically speaking does absolutely no good.

I personally like Kucinich, but I am a hippy at heart. ;)
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
"Like the Founding Fathers, the core of my political philosophy is grounded in the knowledge that rights come from the Creator, not the government. Since rights do not come from the gov't, the gov't cannot violate those rights. Religion has a very important role to play in a limited gov't philosophy."
- Ron Paul

I just can't bring myself to support someone who in essence, doesn't believe in the Social Contract Theory. Who's "creator" are we supposed to base our rights on? This is not a solely Christian country.

I don't understand why so many people have come to support him.

Please enlighten me with lively but controlled debate.

I'm actually partly with you on this one. The problem with the above statement is that the the "creator" is highly unlikely to come down and help make sure that certain of his are not being abused by the government. Any democratically elected government does has the responsibility to make sure the rights of it's citizens are protected to a certain level. What that level is should be decided by the people. While your statement about this not being a solely Christian country are true, it was not at the time of the founding fathers and was not likely meant to be anything but a Christian nation. Their notion separation of Church and state was likely different from ours.

eric said:
and while i am agnostic myself, and am a bit unnerved by some people who believe what they want to in any given religious text and omit anything that doesn't fit their lifestyle or comfort zone.

The same could be said in reverse. There are those who would be equally unnerved about someone who can not have a certain amount of faith in some higher power or give some credence to religion as a whole. The same statements about lifestyle and comfort zones apply.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
124
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Location
Parker, CO
Your Mac's Specs
Jan 08 Mac Pro 2.8GHz 8 Core, 10GB Ram, 2.25TB, ATi Radeon 3870.
I personally support Chris Dobbs because his views (with the exception of gay marriage) fit what I believe. Ron Paul doesn't so I can't support him. I'm a religious person (not christian, there is a difference) but religion should not be a basis for current laws and government issues. Religion (and I'm borrowing from George Carlin here) is a form of control and a way to let someone else run your life. Not directly of course, but by one person telling you what is right and wrong and you believing them IS control. I believe one has to make their own decisions about what they believe and follow them accordingly.

Religion (any for that matter) is a way to bring people together, to unite them for one common goal, and to make civilized people out of hairy beasts. Alot of people say that our current law system is based on Christian values and, well, thats not exactly true. They are based on religious values. Don't murder, don't steal, and don't lie. Every religion on the planet has these same core values. Each religion may have certain exceptions but these are the basis for all religions.

/begin rant
But we live in a time and place that is modern, where information is spread freely (mostly) and without interruption. We can talk to someone across the country for hours all by pushing 11 buttons (10 on a cell phone) and speaking our mind. We live in a country that protects, supports, and oppresses us. Religious values SHOULD have no bearing on current or future laws. Scientific research, popular vote, and common sense should be what our laws are based on. I believe in ultimate freedom of oneself. One should be able to choose what they want to do to themselves, whether it be win a beauty pageant or shoot so much heroin that they can't feel their feet. This country has tried for too long and too hard to keep as many people alive that it is counterintuitive to nature. Of course, more people living = more taxpayer dollars.
/end rant

Sorry about that. Back to the topic. I don't understand why he is supported as much as he is but people can and should support the people that fit their values. He doesn't fit mine, I won't vote for him. I really hope that Dodd can beat out Obama or Clinton but, sadly, I know its a long shot.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
573
Reaction score
46
Points
28
Location
Petaluma, CA
Your Mac's Specs
20" iMac 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo, 12" iBook G4 1.07 GHz
While your statement about this not being a solely Christian country are true, it was not at the time of the founding fathers and was not likely meant to be anything but a Christian nation. Their notion separation of Church and state was likely different from ours.

Wow, that is completely inaccurate. Several of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. When the framers of the Constitution wrote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" they certainly didn't seem to favor any particular religion.

As for the original topic, Dr. Paul's views on the separation of church and state are just one of the reasons I can't justify changing parties and voting for him. He's also one of the War on Christmas nutjobs.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
I I believe in ultimate freedom of oneself. One should be able to choose what they want to do to themselves, whether it be win a beauty pageant or shoot so much heroin that they can't feel their feet. This country has tried for too long and too hard to keep as many people alive that it is counterintuitive to nature. Of course, more people living = more taxpayer dollars.

While I don't disagree with you on nearly anything you said, I have to ask where does one draw the line? Should I be able to murder because I feel it is ok? Should a group like the Manson family be left alone to do as they desire? I know that's a bit extreme, but it illustrates the point. I'm just curious to see what you think.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
124
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Location
Parker, CO
Your Mac's Specs
Jan 08 Mac Pro 2.8GHz 8 Core, 10GB Ram, 2.25TB, ATi Radeon 3870.
While I don't disagree with you on nearly anything you said, I have to ask where does one draw the line? Should I be able to murder because I feel it is ok? Should a group like the Manson family be left alone to do as they desire? I know that's a bit extreme, but it illustrates the point. I'm just curious to see what you think.

I'm actually glad you brought that up. Like I said above, every religion has the same core values. Don't murder, don't steal, don't lie. And any halfway intelligent person would tell you those are some great core values. Since these core values are at the root of pretty much every religion (mainstream or not), I think it's something that everyone can agree on.

What I was referring to in my ultimate freedom section was ultimate freedom for one to do what they please to themselves. I'm opposed to any government that will tell me what I can and cannot do to my own body. If I want to cut myself up, fine. If I want to be the most healthy and active person in the country, no problem. If I want to smoke weed, drop acid, speed on meth, slow down on alcohol, and eat some ecstasy, who is the government to tell me I can't?

It goes back to natural selection and survival of the fittest. If you let a junkie do all the drugs they want at one time, you would have one of three things happen. Either 1) they would die 2) they would learn moderation or 3) they would realize, "Hey, this isn't illegal. Everyone can do it. I'm going to find something else to do". This country places so much value on human life but we have animals that are raised to be killed, forest's that are leveled and even though new trees are planted, in 30 years it will be leveled again.

I'm no tree hugging vegetarian hippy. I eat meat. Red, white, the one that tastes like everything else. I drive a car that gets 23mpg. I support the bland corporate machine as much as everyone else. But I also believe that nature and especially natural selection should be allowed to run it's course.

/begin drug rant
When it comes to drugs and this ridiculous "War on Drugs", I take a slightly radical point of view. It's my thought that 90% of a drug related deaths (from taking drugs, not the gang wars that erupt over the sale) are due to things that are easily preventable. Things like bad mixtures, driving under the influence, mis-education, allergies, or health related issues. What I would like to see is something like, well, drug bars.

But they wouldn't be privately run. They would be owned and operated by the government. First, to get in, you would have to be 18 (this 21 thing is bullshit but anyway). After that, you would have to see a doctor and they would make sure that you are healthy enough to do whatever you want to do. They would check allergies and once you pass that, you would be able to do the drugs you want.

Drugs would be broken up into heavily controlled (heroin, cocaine, meth, LSD, barbiturates), partially controlled (mushrooms, ecstasy, speed), and lightly controlled (marijuana).

Heavily controlled drugs would have to be done inside the building. That way, if something goes wrong, supervision and medical health personnel are there and able to help. If someone gets stupid, they get put into a kind of jail cell (but not as cold or as hard) until they come down. The first time they are warned, second time they are banned from every bar for life. You wouldn't be able to leave with the drugs since they would be administered by the workers and wouldn't be able to leave under the influence.

The partially controlled drugs would be a little different. You would be able to leave with the drugs but they could only be done in certain, designated, privately owned bars. Those bars would have to keep medical personnel on staff (usually two or three) and again, same rules apply. Get stupid under the influence, first time you are warned, second time you lose the privilege for life.

Lightly controlled (or, marijuana) would be the most relaxed. You can leave with it and smoke it in designated bars or in your own home or the home of friends. If you get caught driving on it or you get stupid under the influence, same thing. First time a warning, second time you lose the privilege.

This could help in alot of different ways. It can help control the spread of HIV/AIDS with heroin abusers because you are guaranteed a fresh needle every time. It would also make it so that only the highest quality drugs are available. That would not only make the drugs the best (and make sure people come back to legit stuff instead of take a chance on crap) but would reduce the number of deaths due to interactions of certain chemicals. It would all be controlled by the government and since no insurance company or health plan would cover it, it would all come out of pocket. But, it would be cheaper for each drug than what you could find on the street. This would help to reduce the amount of drug dealers. There are plenty more benefits that I'm probably not thinking of at the moment.
/end drug rant

Whoa, that turned into a huge post. Anyway. I know there are plenty of holes in this but hey, I don't see anyone else coming up with any ideas lol. And I know it doesn't really fit into my belief of ultimate freedom for oneself but it's a start.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
306
Reaction score
8
Points
18
Location
Denver, CO
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro, 8GB o' RAM, 4.5 TB o' disc space, OS Ecks 10.6.7, etc
Should someone be able to shoot up as much heroin or drink as much as they want and then go out driving and kill other people who chose not to die that night?
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
124
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Location
Parker, CO
Your Mac's Specs
Jan 08 Mac Pro 2.8GHz 8 Core, 10GB Ram, 2.25TB, ATi Radeon 3870.
Should someone be able to shoot up as much heroin or drink as much as they want and then go out driving and kill other people who chose not to die that night?

Read my above post for the heroin answer. As far as the alcohol part well, whats different about that right now? I can go buy as much alcohol as I want and drink my face off and drive away. If I get caught well, thats something I will have to go through.

I know I'm going to catch alot of crap for what I said but let me clarify. What I've been saying the whole time is that someone should be able to do whatever they want to THEMSELVES. When it involves someone else, some of those freedoms obviously need to be taken. That's what I've been saying the whole time. Ultimate freedom for someone to do what they please TO THEMSELVES.

Again, drinking my face off only puts me in danger (well, possibly my carpet too) but driving, that puts everyone else at danger (whether i'm drunk or high or sober). My belief only apply's to freedom of ONESELF to do what they want to THEMSELVES. Not ultimate freedom of one to do whatever they want to make them happy. Big difference there. Some people want to do drugs. Some people want to have an abortion. Some people want to cut their own nipples off. If they want to, let them.

But some people get pleasure from hurting others. The key there is hurting others. If they get pleasure from hurting themselves, who am I to stop them? But if they get pleasure from hurting others then they obviously aren't doing what they want to themselves that pleases themselves. Make sense?
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
306
Reaction score
8
Points
18
Location
Denver, CO
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro, 8GB o' RAM, 4.5 TB o' disc space, OS Ecks 10.6.7, etc
I suppose. My post was essentially asking if you think driving while drunk/intoxicated should be legal. A week ago tonight I was involved in an automobile accident which totaled my car. Guess what? The driver of the other vehicle had been drinking! Yay for stupid people!
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
9,383
Reaction score
417
Points
83
Location
Irvine, CA
Your Mac's Specs
Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
Ultimate freedom for someone to do what they please TO THEMSELVES.

My belief only apply's to freedom of ONESELF to do what they want to THEMSELVES. Not ultimate freedom of one to do whatever they want to make them happy. Big difference there. Some people want to do drugs. Some people want to have an abortion. Some people want to cut their own nipples off. If they want to, let them.

Amen to that.

A lot of people find the notion of others doing things like drugs and being "morally abject" to be quite abhorring, and as a result, they try to control that behavior. I would like for these people to imagine if things were the other way around. What if we lived in a society where being morally conservative and religious was considered to be weird to the rest of society. How would you like it if society tried to control your behavior? I'm sure you wouldn't like to be controlled because others don't believe the way you do. The same applies for the people we're talking about here. Just because you may not like a certain group of people does not mean you should force them to conform. That is not the definition of a free society.

Joe, I'm sure you've figure this out already, but I want to reinforce dj's point that drunk driving would most definitely be illegal under a free society because it presents a harm to others. Drinking in the privacy of one's home or in establishments such as bars and restaurants is perfectly acceptable, just don't try to operate heavy machinery afterwards. If you do, you will suffer the consequences, as you do right now. Driving is a privilege that one can lose, it's not a right.

Back on topic. I will vote for Ron Paul in the primaries simply because I do not want to see a neo-conservative or religious nutjob to even have the opportunity to run for president in the general election. I may or may not vote for the man come next November, but I sure would enjoy the campaign far more if I didn't have to listen to Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney for the rest of the year.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
My belief only apply's to freedom of ONESELF to do what they want to THEMSELVES. Not ultimate freedom of one to do whatever they want to make them happy. Big difference there. Some people want to do drugs. Some people want to have an abortion. Some people want to cut their own nipples off. If they want to, let them.


Ok, thanks. That was the answer I was looking for. Very well put by the way. I don't think I'm quite as liberal (or would that be Libertarian?) as you in this respect, but I do agree with most of what you have said about government controls and personal freedoms.

Kash said:
Back on topic. I will vote for Ron Paul in the primaries simply because I do not want to see a neo-conservative or religious nutjob to even have the opportunity to run for president in the general election. I may or may not vote for the man come next November, but I sure would enjoy the campaign far more if I didn't have to listen to Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney for the rest of the year.

Well, no one says you have to listen to them. I figure it's entertaining to listen to those I disagree with, even if only to remind me of why I disagree with them. If I listen to Obama long enough, I start to like W again.....
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
9,383
Reaction score
417
Points
83
Location
Irvine, CA
Your Mac's Specs
Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
Well, no one says you have to listen to them. I figure it's entertaining to listen to those I disagree with, even if only to remind me of why I disagree with them. If I listen to Obama long enough, I start to like W again.....

You're right, I don't have to listen to them, and I try my best to keep it at a minimum (gotta keep myself informed, can't let myself turn into a sheep). However, I would like for potential leaders to say things that are constructive and useful. I have no problem listening to conservative and liberal ideas for government, it's the extremists I can't stand, which is essentially what Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee represent.

I can listen to McCain and Paul speak because they are logical and of sound mind in their rhetoric. They don't have speeches full of hate, fear, and vitriol. These are the type of Republicans I want to listen to for the next couple of months because they actually have ideas, not just lofty speeches. While I may not agree with McCain and Paul, I don't have a problem listening to them, as I do with the hate speeches of the other Republican candidates.

The same applies to the Democrats. There are nutjobs on the left too, and I would much rather prefer to see candidates who are of sound judgement and have practical ideas.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
124
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Location
Parker, CO
Your Mac's Specs
Jan 08 Mac Pro 2.8GHz 8 Core, 10GB Ram, 2.25TB, ATi Radeon 3870.
I have no problem listening to conservative and liberal ideas for government, it's the extremists...I would much rather prefer to see candidates who are of sound judgement and have practical ideas.

Amen to that.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
939
Reaction score
84
Points
28
Location
Akron, Ohio
Your Mac's Specs
C2D MacBook Pro
This has turned into a great thread. At first I thought 'Oh god...another RON PAUL thread' :p

DJ, you have some amazing points, and I really enjoyed reading your posts. As you said, there are certainly holes in your proposed idea (government run? ha!), but it is much better than the 'War On Drugs'.

Kash, I agree with you as well about candidates. I do not agree with Paul, but much of the Republican talk of 'Islamofascists' is grating and annoying. I would rather it be him than another (well, maybe McCain).
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
124
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Location
Parker, CO
Your Mac's Specs
Jan 08 Mac Pro 2.8GHz 8 Core, 10GB Ram, 2.25TB, ATi Radeon 3870.
thanks for the compliment. the "drug bar theory" was something i came up with around the time of hurricane katrina when i was sitting in my house with no power (i lived 45miles north of new orleans and 35miles east of baton rouge). i kind of forgot about it for a while and my post was the first time i had ever told anyone about it. oh well. hopefully some day we could move forward and realize that recreational drug use isn't such a big deal.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top