Rand Paul wants Obama to go after Colorado and Washington.

[mojave green]

If you control the money and what money is defined as then you control everything.

that sums it up!

 

[PizzaMan5000]

I think MJ is just being thrown in here to rile people up, the real motivation for the repubs is Obummercare and immigration and all of the other laws Obama chooses not to obey.

The MJ thing was voted in by the people which is a little different then the emperor just choosing not to obey laws whenever it strikes his fancy.

This is probably a democrat biased article, written on a slant to demonize Rand. When in reality Rand is one of the only guy that gives a shit about your personal freedoms.

I'd take this article with a grain of salt.

I am a MODERATE conservative, say a 40/60 hybrid strain of dem/rep. From what I know about Rand Paul, he would probably make the enforcement act take effect, then simply make cannabis legal on a federal level. That's the kind of cool shit he would do. As a "libertarian" he is probably shooting for the most cost effective way to go about things, while also giving people MORE civil liberties.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am a MODERATE conservative, say a 40/60 hybrid strain of dem/rep. From what I know about Rand Paul, he would probably make the enforcement act take effect, then simply make cannabis legal on a federal level. That's the kind of cool shit he would do. As a "libertarian" he is probably shooting for the most cost effective way to go about things, while also giving people MORE civil liberties.

Dream on, or become better informed. Google "Rand Paul marijuana" to find out what he really has to say, rather than referencing some astroturfed & idealized image of him as a "libertarian".

Decriminalization just means that tokers get fines & expensive "treatment", paid for out of their own pockets instead of jail, and sentencing reform just means that growers & dealers do less time if busted. That's not "libertarian" in the slightest.

It looks like lipstick on a pig from here.

 

[HidingInTheHaze]

As a "libertarian" he is probably shooting for the most cost effective way to go about things, while also giving people MORE civil liberties.

Rand is not a Libertarian, he's a Republican.
His father Ron was a Libertarian, but Rand knows it's too hard to get anything done as a Libertarian, so he is a "Libertarian leaning" Republican.

 

[lemongrove]

Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you are member of congress. But then I repeat myself. Mark Twain

 

[LargePrime]

No your comprehension is fail.

Advocating for the killers of babies as long as they are the parents makes it hard to continue a serious discussion on this topic.

 

[Eighths-n-Aces]

Rand is not a Libertarian, he's a Republican.
His father Ron was a Libertarian, but Rand knows it's too hard to get anything done as a Libertarian, so he is a "Libertarian leaning" Republican.

his dad at least seemed to realize that once you sell your soul you can't get it back so he never put himself in a position to owe anybody anything. Ron and Rand are not the same ...... daddy's boy aint that smart, or just doesn't think we are. he is proving that he's just another politician

 

[bentom187]

Advocating for the killers of babies as long as they are the parents makes it hard to continue a serious discussion on this topic.

All I said is its not my place or anyone else's job or responsibility to deal with the parents who murder their kids. I don't think trafficking humans for money (prsison) puts me or anyone else on any moral high ground. They are are nuts and or dumb. How the hell does that equal advocating it ?

Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State
[YOUTUBEIF]N0BfYHsn_Ns#t[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[slimjoint]

Fuck all the legalization talk. I hope its illegal in those states soon, their bullshit standards will fuck up the market. Prices are already taking a hit.
Props rand paul for his efforts. If its not broken dont fix it. Id rather take the risk of jail than the risk of an industry crashing down.

 

[bentom187]

Here is his vote for sanctioning Russia,Paul (R-KY), Nay

He gave the war hawks what they wanted to hear, then stayed true to libertarian principals. Stealth libertarian. Just watch his votes.

Senate
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00088

House
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll148.xml

Former Rep. Ron Paul: My son Rand is doing better work in Congress than I did
https://soundcloud.com/smerconishshow/former-rep-ron-paul-my-son

I like Ron a lot better, but it seems Rand's political savvy is winning the day.
This might explain why.

Former Rep. Ron Paul: My son Rand is doing better work in Congress than I did
https://soundcloud.com/smerconishshow/former-rep-ron-paul-my-son

 

[LargePrime]

All I said is its not my place or anyone else's job or responsibility to deal with the parents who murder their kids. I don't think trafficking humans for money (prsison) puts me or anyone else on any moral high ground. They are are nuts and or dumb. How the hell does that equal advocating it ?

You are advocating for a system that says it has no consequence for killers of babies.

And this system is also internally all screwed up. You whine when I point out that not all babies are the same, yet you ACTUALLY THINK that ALL BABIES can be killed with impunity by someone, and that not all people can kill all babies. This is an inherent inequality of both the rights of man and the babies, but you seem to not notice that.

But not only CAN people kill babies, but NO ONE CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Cause that would be immoral.

So how are you not a HORRIBLE EVIL crazy person?

And how is a GOVERNMENT that feeds and cares for and heals babies far inferior to crazy impossible never existed/always existed protect the babies killer Libertarian land?

 

[bentom187]

I am advocating not becoming the problem that is the state.
Right now the state openly supports it and makes whoever disagrees pay for it anyway, so this system has already proven to be much worst.


Eugenicists Rejoice: More Black Babies Aborted Than Born in NYC

On Friday, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Office of Vital Statistics released a report titled "Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes." As expected, the report showed an exceedingly high number of abortions and an exceedingly low number of births.

But the report also showed something more disturbing: a vast majority of the abortions came from the black and Hispanic communities – and in the black community, births were outnumbered by abortion by 6,570. Overall, 42.4% of abortions in the city were of black children; another 31% came from the Hispanic community.

So again im not the boogey man, I am just saying a protection racket does not work.

The baby has rights, and so does everyone else.

The problem is can you destroy rights to protect them? I would say depending on the mechanism used, you might not have to destroy them. Im sure there are plenty like not supporting the doctors who do it, or educate the people who want to try , why its a bad idea to murder their baby. Its superior then trafficking people for the benefit of others(Gov) and for a false sense of security or vanity.

If they are trying to murder your kid, then by all means do what is necessary, self defense is different than murder , the murderer is initiating the violence. You are well within your rights to protect you and yours.

 

[bentom187]

Society without a State

The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists "assume that all people are good" and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.

A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the "nature of man," given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.

 

[LargePrime]

I am advocating not becoming the problem that is the state.

NO, your advocating for a theoretical imaginary system that grants the specific right of infanticide. to specific people.

The fact that fetus are aborted in a practical real governmental system that actual real people live in has no bearing on your imaginary "wish it was so" blessed baby killer fantasy. No one is saying in our practical real system that it is OK to kill a newborn. Cause that is fucking crazy.

So no, the state does not openly supporting killing newborns or children, or anything at all like that. And even in the case of aborting a fetus, that still has rules and regulations on that medical procedure, unlike your fantasy system which has no rules.

You hoped for system is very much worse. It is HORRIABLE and bad and you should be ashamed to advocate it.

I am just saying a protection racket does not work.

The 'protection racket' requires a scam. There are many GOVERNMENTS whos citizens are provably better off that the vast majority of all human kind. And they got that way by working together.

The baby has rights, and so does everyone else.

wait a minute. You said the baby could be killed by its parents with no rights violation, and that it was immoral for anyone to do anything about it. Why are you changing your story now? Did you suddenly realize that you are advocating for a fantasy system to kill babies on a public forum?

The problem is can you destroy rights to protect them? I would say depending on the mechanism used, you might not have to destroy them. Im sure there are plenty like not supporting the doctors who do it, or educate the people who want to try , why its a bad idea to murder their baby. Its superior then trafficking people for the benefit of others(Gov) and for a false sense of security or vanity.

Perhaps I am not trying too hard to understand the ramblings of an advocate for moral baby killing, but this reads like crazy talk.

If they are trying to murder your kid, then by all means do what is necessary, self defense is different than murder , the murderer is initiating the violence. You are well within your rights to protect you and yours.

And they will. Cause EVERYWHERE the collective use of force is not granted to a GOVERNMENT the warlords show up to kill you and take your stuff. That's WHY governments were invented

 

[bentom187]

NO, your advocating for a theoretical imaginary system that grants the specific right of infanticide. to specific people.

MUDER IS NOT A RIGHT ,AND GIVING SOMEONE A PRIVILAGE IS NOT A RIGHT, RIGHTS ARE NOT GRANTED, FFS.

So following this logic and what I actually said ,it seems like you are reading and inferring whatever you want.Which is why I have repeated myself several times because the basis of your arguments don't differentiate between the two. You can disagree just don't tell me I said or meant something different if I didn't write it.


Rights and Privileges
[YOUTUBEIF]EN3HUGvKwvY[/YOUTUBEIF]

The fact that fetus are aborted in a practical real governmental system that actual real people live in has no bearing on your imaginary "wish it was so" blessed baby killer fantasy. No one is saying in our practical real system that it is OK to kill a newborn. Cause that is fucking crazy.

So no, the state does not openly supporting killing newborns or children, or anything at all like that. And even in the case of aborting a fetus, that still has rules and regulations on that medical procedure, unlike your fantasy system which has no rules..

ROFL nice double standard. Yeah like It makes a world a of difference to the baby who murders it.

My position is there are no rules which you do not agree to voluntarily, not that there are no rules.

You hoped for system is very much worse. It is HORRIABLE and bad and you should be ashamed to advocate it.

The 'protection racket' requires a scam. There are many GOVERNMENTS whos citizens are provably better off that the vast majority of all human kind. And they got that way by working together.wait a minute. You said the baby could be killed by its parents with no rights violation, and that it was immoral for anyone to do anything about it. Why are you changing your story now? Did you suddenly realize that you are advocating for a fantasy system to kill babies on a public forum?Perhaps I am not trying too hard to understand the ramblings of an advocate for moral baby killing, but this reads like crazy talk.And they will. Cause EVERYWHERE the collective use of force is not granted to a GOVERNMENT the warlords show up to kill you and take your stuff. That's WHY governments were invented

Tell me when did I consent to being ruled over by anyone ? ,yeah it is a scam.

I didn't say I was against society ,I am against force fraud and coercion from a government which presumes I consented to all that. Charity replaces all of that voluntarily.So does all voluntary interaction.

Babies have rights they could be violated by a attacker as a possibility just like an adult ,a protection racket (gov.) wont protect it as I just pointed out ,just like passing ordinances against bears shitting in the woods would not stop the bears. Raising the level of morality by leading by example and education so it does not happen, or if it does not very often, is the best way to go without being a violent savage ourselves. I am arguing to rid us of the root causes without being violent idiots and stealing (taxes) to fund it. THIS IS THE MOST PEACFUL NON VIOLENT COURSE OF ACTION.




So does the system your advocating right now have state sponsored abortions ? Yes it does.

So im arguing to get rid of this system that enables it to be clear.

How is that evil ?

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

 

[LargePrime]

MUDER IS NOT A RIGHT ,AND GIVING SOMEONE A PRIVILAGE IS NOT A RIGHT, RIGHTS ARE NOT GRANTED, FFS.

So following this logic and what I actually said ,it seems like you are reading and inferring whatever you want.

OK lets review what was literally said...
I: "You know people kill babies"
You:"I am not against anything "being done" or society, I just think the things that are going to be done, happen with consent and voluntarily."
I: "So the baby killers should voluntarily turn themselves in?"

And you LITERALLY SAID "No, whom do they turn themselves in to for murdering their own child, they have to face the fact that they are dumb immoral savages. If the murder someone elses child then they have to face the parents or guardians which could end up being very violent."
And you even followed up with...
"I didn't say there were no consequences ,there are from the parents, but if its their own kid they have to live with it, again you should read what I post not infer what you want and then call it my argument. "

So in review, libertarians fantastic thesis on the imaginary organization of mankind advocates for, in response to infanticide by parents, them knowing they did it. How they would not know they did it is beyond me.

If you STARTED with that as an explanation of libertarianism, no one would talk to you.

But the REAL funny/sick part is that you don't get mad at being called out for advocating for immunity for killing of babies by parents, but you get mad when I don't follow your rules for the use of the word 'rights'.

Then you quote me and say its a double standard, but you don't actually point out the double standard. Where is the double standard? Or is it a "natural law" thing and I'll need to examine 'blacks law' to get the joke?

Tell me when did I consent to being ruled over by anyone ? ,yeah it is a scam.

You consented by staying. You can leave any time. How is it a scam to assume everyone who lives in an area with the generally accepted authority has been for generations doing the same thing it always does, and people generally happy with the arrangement, consents to that authority? Not only that, but if you have a problem with that authority, you can get up and engage and change it.
Scammers don't generally let you change the rules of the scam. And they don't stay around for long. Maybe you meant to use another word than scam?

So does the system your advocating right now have state sponsored abortions ? Yes it does.

Wait, what? Its OK for parents to kill their children but you have a problem if they pay in dollars they got from a government to do it?

As an aside, you do know that in the US, NO federal dollars are spent on abortion, right? But you don't mind abortion, right? Cause in your 'sane' system, parents can freely kill their kids. I mean freely, but they also have to know that they did it.

 

[bentom187]

All right im not going to parse more of your quotes.

Just answer this ,do abortions happen now ?

What is your solution to stopping them ?

If they are happening now isn't that a failure of the state for not punishing them now ?

If they cant stop them and you wont and neither will the general public ,does that not make a mechanism for anything to happen weather you argee to it or not because everyone is looking to introduce a middle man who will even if its in-effective at stopping them ?

I call that mob rule I don't know about you.

Are you going to stop them ? and if you cant does that make you a baby killer ? the same you accuse me of being.

Like I said there are actual murders taking place ,you cant stop them all even under the penalty of death. What makes you think you are going to stop someone from killing their own child ? I just might add its to late and pointless after the fact. It does not deter the murder of grown ups either. please explain it I am dying to hear this.

I am explaining the difference between prevention and punishment after the deed is done.What you do to the parent does not matter if the child is already dead. You had prevented nothing.

The double standard is murder/abortion is accepted by you only if there is a group of people you approve of doing it.

Peoples existence is not consent. Does that work with sex you sicko ?
No people have rights and they get to decide what is done to them.
If you still try to force whatever it is you are doing, then its a violation of their natural rights. Even if you think its a good idea.

Your argument can be picked apart here, If the ethnic people of Germany in the 30's and 40's existence was consent enough to put them to death by their own government ,then nothing wrong was done, because it was voluntary because they didn't leave. Do you see the problem with that line of thinking or are you going to twist this into another inference of your own imagination?


You would be wrong about changing the laws, the only people who can change them is congress and thats only if it threatens their power grasp, even then they don't follow the law.Not only that they are on the payroll of a privately owned international group of bankers.
I would say it goes further, that they mold public opinion from TV to start with.Like abortion and your double standard that its alright for some people to do.


Here are the states that receive funding from one form of government taxation or another.
Yes federal dollars are paying for it so are the states.

Funding under Hyde Amendment Only: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

Hyde Amendment and Additional Health Circumstances: Indiana (physical health), Iowa (fetal abnormality), Mississippi (fetal abnormality), Utah (physical health and fetal abnormality), Virginia (fetal abnormality), and Wisconsin (physical health).

All or Most Health Circumstances: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

Noncompliant with the Hyde Amendment: South Dakota (life endangerment only).

Do you see why punishing people after the fact makes no difference and why prevention without violating other peoples rights is a better alternative than hiring a mob to do your dirty work?

Or am I talking to a wall and everyone is evil and dumb and you have the final solution which is just a re hashing of a thoroughly tried failure ?

I think Einstein did say something about people repeating failures.

 

[LargePrime]

All right im not going to parse more of your quotes.

Just answer this ,do abortions happen now ?

What is your solution to stopping them ?

If they are happening now isn't that a failure of the state for not punishing them now ?

MFW? Seriously?
You go from arguing the moral superiority of parents killing babies in Libertarian Land, to getting all active and excised about fetal abortions in the USA (i guess?)?
Now how is that not an actual real double standard?

How are you not a Horrible EVIL CRAZY PERSON?

And you have dodged all my questions all along. How do you assume to have any authority to request me to answer any question of yours?

And since you are advocating for the moral authority and proper right of parents to kill their children, on a public forum, why should anyone ever talk to you again?

So I think i'll stick with my "failed state" where parents who kill their children go to jail mostly.

Edited to add clarity, I think.

Can we PLEASE make another thread and stop shitting all over this one? Can we request a mod to split or clone these posts off into another thread?

 

[bentom187]

MFW? Seriously?
You go from arguing the moral superiority of parents killing babies in Libertarian Land, to getting all active and excised about fetal abortions in the USA (i guess?)?
Now how is that not an actual real double standard?

How are you not a Horrible EVIL CRAZY PERSON?

And you have dodged all my questions all along. How do you assume to have any authority to request me to answer any question of yours?

And since you are advocating for the moral authority and proper right of parents to kill their children, on a public forum, why should anyone ever talk to you again?

So I think i'll stick with my "failed state" where parents who kill their children go to jail mostly.

Edited to add clarity, I think.

Can we PLEASE make another thread and stop shitting all over this one? Can we request a mod to split or clone these posts off into another thread?

Bad shit happens, it does not mean I approve of it. Unless it happens to me, It is not my place to punish people nor am I willing to hire someone to do it for me. That's it.

 

[LargePrime]

Bad shit happens, it does not mean I approve of it. It is not my place to punish people nor am I willing to hire someone to do it for me. That's it.

But its not just a "bad shit happens" thing.

In your fantastic made up theory on the ONE right and proper way for man to organize himself, you actually think it is OK for a parent to kill a child, and that its actually fucking immoral to DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!

And, again, if you said "Here is an introduction to libertarian thought; Parents should be able to kill their children, and NO ONE can do ANYTHING about it. Cause doing anything about it is immoral", no one would have any interest in libertarians at all.

But it gets worse.

A logical out growth of this is that parents can rape their children under libertarian thought, right? Again, under libertarian thought it would be immoral for anyone to do anything about it.

So I guess I was wrong. I imagine there would be a select group of, what my "failed state" would call, murdering sexual predators who might just whole hardheartedly embrace libertarianism. I can't really imagine who else would.

A "Bad shit happens thing" is where your parents rape you and just before they kill you, cause you were born into a libertarian cult, you escape to the neighbors who happen to live in one of those failed states. Then they cops come and arrest your parents, and you go into foster care and then are adopted, and you have a rough time as a child but the state pays for you to go to school and college cause your parents are shitty libertarians, and you end up having a successful life. The fact that you were born to libertarians is one of those "bad shit happens" thing.