This entry was posted on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 am and is filed under Presidential History, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Classic Reagan. The other Ron could never pull that off. Another reason why he’ll never catch on with Americans, he is a poor speaker. He has many good (and bad) ideas, but he’s not a good communicator.
Reagan was smart. Paul is as dumb as a bag of rocks, even for a doctor.
Anyone who is against the death penalty and is for the legalization of illegal street drugs has to be as dumb as a bag of rocks.
Ron Paul’s IQ is up in the stratosphere, but he’s “dumb” because he’s realizes the death penalty doesn’t deter crime and executes innocent people, and the War on Drugs has only created more available street drugs than ever before and filled the prisons to capacity with non-violent offenders.
Read a book or something, David Black. It’s no secret that a bag of rocks has a lot more going on than you do.
Filling the prisons aside, the Constitution aside, the ‘War’ on Drugs has not altered the rate of addiction among the general population at all, so it’s at a very minimum a costly endeavour without return. But it has driven prices through the roof on street drugs, which forces addicts to become criminals to afford their fixes. Non-crime-created heroin is estimated to cost about $3-5 a day (coincidentally about the price of a Starbucks’ habit). The most peaceful heroin addicts are the addicted physicians who have ready access to it. On top of that, street drug quality is poor, so many people OD on them. So besides the War on Drugs imprisoning citizens, it kills them (the users, the gangs, the innocent bystanders, the police, etc.) Then there’s the whole matter of the policies starting as a way ‘to keep our white women safe from drug-crazed negros’ (this whole house of cards is built on a racist canard). Britain is already giving away drugs to addicts to cut crime and it works. If we spent a tiny fraction of the money spent to fight a ‘war’ on drugs on drug treatment, we’d all be demonstrably better off (all of us except the war profiteers, of course). But why should a physician with thirty years of macroeconomic expertise make policy recommendations based on data and medical evidence when we can have some good old-fashioned rabble rousing instead? Yee, haw, let’s hang us some drug dealers!
“Ron Paul’s IQ is up in the stratosphere”
Really? And you know that for a fact? What is the number exactly?
“but he’s “dumb” because he’s realizes the death penalty doesn’t deter crime ”
Yes it does, because it eliminates one robbing, raping, and murdering criminal scumbag from this planet forever. If we simply fried every repeat felony offender, the country would be a lot better place.
“War on Drugs has only created more available street drugs than ever before and filled the prisons to capacity with non-violent offenders.”
Violent or non-violent, I don’t differentiate. Criminal scum is criminal scum. Stop trying to humanize the bottom feeders of society.
So we put more cops on the streets in urban neighborhoods and get rid of these liberal pansy assed judges who give soft sentences to drug dealers and drug users.
Bill M: you put the LOSER in LOSERtarian. Anyone who advocates on behalf of the “rights” of criminal scum while criticizing the purpose of the criminal justice system and law enforcement deserves whatever cruel fate that could possibly befall them. But since NH is rather white bread, the likelihood that a “Raheem” or “Jamir” from the ‘hood won’t be around to try and carjack you, rob your house, poison your kids with drugs, or rape and kill a loved one.
You’re too comfortable up there in NH to face the realities of what street criminal scum does to society and the clean, decent, and law abiding people that try to live in it.
David, since you don’t discern morally between violent and non-violent criminals, because a ‘criminal is a criminal’, then legalizing drugs would solve lots of problems for you – you wouldn’t have to hate drug addicts anymore. Maybe you could even show them some love and help them get treatment. I’m assuming at that point you wouldn’t be making independent moral judgements against drug addicts, since you go along with the prevailing law (if you question this, your ‘criminal is a criminal’ rule is left defenceless). Startlingly, though, you seem to detest street crime, but oppose proven methods to reduce it. But what shall you do if racist hate is criminalized? Don’t think it’s not on the table in Washington.
BTW, we’re comfortable in NH because we take care of ourselves. Concealed carry is a fashion accessory. Freedom works.
“Maybe you could even show them some love and help them get treatment.”
Aww, Bill, the bleeding heart! I always knew losertarians were more liberal than conservative.
“Startlingly, though, you seem to detest street crime, but oppose proven methods to reduce it.”
What “proven methods” would you be referring to? Treating criminal scum like human beings and mollycoddling them so they’ll return to committing crime after a rehab stint? No, the only way to deal with them is with the most harsh and punitive punishments. People need to made to fear for their lives if they are sent to jail. They need to be made to feel that the longer they stay, the more likely it is they won’t survive.
“But what shall you do if racist hate is criminalized?”
It isn’t my fault that one out of every four black males is or has been in jail.
Bill, you sound like a guy that’s still puffing away on something, which is why you have such a permissive attitude and why your reasoning is so unrealistic. I truly pity those kids of yours. Well, with any luck, they’ll grow up and think drugs are Ok by your example and then find out the hard way that they aren’t.
That would teach people like you.
You’re supporting the current prohibition experiment which is a proven failure. It has had no impact on the addiction rate in society, and it’s created massive crime. Cutting the cost of drugs cuts crime – Britain’s proven it, go read up on it and get educated. If you can’t bother, it’s quite simple economics: addicts commit crime to pay for the very high price of street drugs, which are caused by prohibition. As for your ad-hominem, I’ve always been completely drug free, aside from the occasional use of caffeine if I’m tired. How ’bout you – any booze or smokes in your house? Have you ever been high?
I’m with David Black on the drug issue. There are other impacts of a bunch of high people running around, such as traffic fatalities, abused children, etc. Plus, wrong is wrong. Use the UK as a model of what NOT to do.
I’m also against capital punishment, unless you can tell me how many innocent people you’re willing to kill for every 100 guilty ones. For me, the number is zero. Lock them up for life, no parole, no TV, no space in excess of hot bunking sailors on a submarine serving their country under water for 3 months at a time.
Oh yeah, Ron Paul IS too old to be president. RR was chopping wood in his 80’s, Ron P. couldn’t chop his way out of a wet paper bag.
Doug, what about the prospect of Gov. Gary Johnson running in 2012?
I’m a huge fan of the site, keep it up.
“Cutting the cost of drugs cuts crime – Britain’s proven it, go read up on it and get educated. If you can’t bother, it’s quite simple economics: addicts commit crime to pay for the very high price of street drugs, which are caused by prohibition.”
Sorry, I don’t look at anything Britain does for social issues as exemplary. I’m not going to read some pro-rehab propaganda from your fellow bleeding hearts. I want to read documentation from those who despise street crime and support more punitive measures to deal with street criminal vermin.
Your view is all wrong and immoral, Bill. You wish to control market conditions to accommodate criminals and criminal activity, instead of just striking at their hearts and eliminating them. They are scum. They are not normal and decent human beings. This is your mistake in judgment. You can’t view the issue in the harshest light, which is why you fail.
I already told you what the solution would be, but you are too much of a bleeding heart to accept it … more police, more prisons, and harsher punishments.
As for capital punishment, the “innocent” you mention, tex2, is someone who has already been in in jail for another series of crimes who gets fingered as the guilty party in another case.
Since that person already has a criminal record, I have no problem if they are fried while in reality being not guilty of the crime they are being punished for. Who cares if some convict is punished for something he or she didn’t do?
You’re going to tell me you are concerned for the rights of a convict? Please, that’s how a bleeding heart thinks.
No one with a clean criminal record is going to be wrongly accused and subsequently fried.
Again, all those allegedly and wrongly accused have a prior record.
The cost of capital punishment? It’s not as expensive as you think.
A box of rat poison costs 5 bucks. A person can be paid $10 per hour digging the hole to throw the corpse in.
How severe should the “prior record” be? Rape? Theft? Traffic ticket? If they were locked up longer for less severe crimes (which I am in favor of), there would be far less back on the streets able to commit a murder.
I am concerned about the rights of the wrongly accused, such as the European Jews prior to and during WWII. Do you think at least some of them committed prior crimes? Is this alone an acceptable excuse to put them in a gas chamber, or shot down in groups in front of their earthen mass graves? This is what YOUR thinking leads to, and of all people (or at least this is your claim) it is YOU who should be more careful about capital punishment.
Other than that, you have zero sense of justice.
I doubt you can prove your overall statement, “…all those allegedly and wrongly accused have a prior record.” Even if you can, our judicial system doesn’t work that way.
The cost is another problem with capital punishment. Unless it is quickly accomplished, more money is spent on the various appeals than simply locking them up for life.
“I am concerned about the rights of the wrongly accused, such as the European Jews prior to and during WWII.”
They were “guilty” of only one thing, being Jewish. That was not an offense until the Nazis came along and gained power in Europe. You know that, so why dispute or question it? Stop falling back on this continued implied anti-Semitism you like to trot out when you have nothing else to contribute beyond your problems with Amway.
Good job, I thought you would wake up when it got more personal. The jews weren’t hunted only because they were jewish, they represented something Hitler didn’t like.
Next time, try answering the questions. Questions are sentences that have a question mark (?) at the end.
“Good job, I thought you would wake up when it got more personal.”
In implicit admission that you’re nothing but trolling loser as most everyone else has concluded on all those boards and blogs you’ve polluted with your nonsense, Dave.
An implicit admission that you’re nothing but trolling loser as most everyone else has concluded on all those boards and blogs you’ve polluted with your nonsense, Dave.
okay who cares about you your from Israeli defense force you don’t listen to reason your a nazi fascist how bout you go shoot some Palestine children just for the hell of it you blood drinking Khazarian you people funded hitler hilling of millions of people you sick little shit. GTFO OF AMERICA YOU NEOCON ZIONIST
Still can’t answer questions, can you?
You just made explicit errors, as I didn’t admit anything, am not a troll, loser, and I’m not Dave. Other than that, you nailed it! LOL
Like I stated on the other thread, you’re nothing but a troll loser who deliberately writes things that will provoke a response from others. You exploit the fact that I am Jewish to make remarks about Germany, Nazis, Israel, whatever it takes for you to continue trolling.
STILL can’t answer the question.
I write things to make you THINK. Every once in a while, I have hope that someday you will.
I don’t give a rip that you’re jewish, YOU are the one who cares so much. I don’t even consider you jewish, any more than I consider someone who has Christian parents a Christian. If I’m trolling, you’re taking hook, line, and sinker! LOL
You do write things that make me think. You write things that make me think you are a redneck troll, just like everyone else on this blog on all those amway related blogs you’ve been posting to for the last few years.
I hope Doug’s pleased with how his blog has degenerated to this sad state of affairs.
And you STILL can’t answer the question.
You couldn’t think if I threatened to take away your prized jewness away from you. LOL
Doug wants attention. He’s delighted.
I need to clarify something … thinking of tex as a misguided and dim witted hillbilly troll is a sentiment universally shared.
Only in your little universe.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.