Posted on 05/05/2011 10:01:32 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
While it took a little while for the Republican candidates attending tonight’s debate to get going, the sheer diversity on the panel guaranteed some spirited answers, paramount among them Rep. Ron Paul’s steadfast adherence to civil liberties, which somehow concluded with him supporting legalization of heroin to raucous applause– highlighting the thick tension between conservatives and libertarians on the GOP.
During a “lightning round” where candidates were asked to answer questions about the issues that would give them the most problems during the primaries, both libertarian candidates– Paul and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson– were asked to defend their liberal stances on drugs. First was Rep. Paul, who Fox’s Chris Wallace confronted with his controversial position that drugs and prostitution should be legalized. His unapologetic response elicited cheers from the crowd, as he argues that, just as “you don’t have the First Amendment so you could talk about the weather,” civil liberties do not exist to protect personal rights upon which most agree. He later likened private freedoms like this to religious freedoms, prompting Wallace’s follow-up: “Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
How many posters here would use heroin if the govt. made it legal?
Libertarians are just cute and fuzzy anarchists. They don’t have the foresight to realize their form of liberty will only liberate themselves from this mortal coil, because they have no one’s back and no one has theirs. Easily picked off.
Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government has the right to keep me from enriching my own uranium, or constructing my own nuclear reactor.
Libertarian absolutist argument bore the hell out of me.
I’m 25 and a nobody in this world, so yeah, somebody else will do it.
human catastrophe is what we have now. Have you been shot at yet over this stupid war? I am living proof you don't need to have anything to do with the drugs to get shot at in this war.
Personally I am at the point if drug addicts want to kill themselves let them.
Perhaps a Freeper can read this and then reconsider. http://www.rand.org/multi/dprc/projects/legalization_debate.html
Not me
I just agree with this point.
None. That's why the audience applauded.
Paul just hit $1 million dollars in his 'money bomb' today.
Then why did you use an absolutist argument to prove another absolutist argument wrong?
Paul is definitely not a statist, and I respect his trust of the individual.
Ha ha! Yah, right!
Go search and find the last time the U.S. military burned an opium field in Afganistan.
If you studied your history, you'd know that the Taliban forbade the growing of opium. By 2001, they had nearly wiped out all Afghan opium production.
Since we've been in Afghanistan, opium production has skyrocketed with 93% of the world's opium coming from Afghanistan, all guarded by the U.S. military.
Reductio Ad Absurdum.
The only way to counter an absurd argument is with another absurd argument.
Well, you’re about half right.
The Taliban started letting people grow again when it became a net benefit to them to do so. It helped their war effort...see an article in one of the last few months of National Geographic for details.
Some guy once said that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism. I believe it was Reagan.
How many fields have the U.S. military destroyed since we've been there?
What percentage of the world's opium production comes from Afghanistan?
Heroin junkies affect everyone around them. There is no such thing as a moderate user of heroin. They can’t hold jobs because they spend all of their time shooting up. They’ll rob, steal, and kill to finance their addiction. The only way to protect society from them is by putting them behind bars.
We’re on the verge of a dollar collapse, and we’re talking about poppies....
“I am watching the replay now. I just saw a message from the Chair of the SC GOP. She is a smokin’ hot chick. We have pasty fat guys running the GOP in PA. It’s not fair.”
That’s cause PA is (culturally) the East. SC is the South.
Women are hotter in the South. And not afraid to be women.
They’re also tougher, will kick someone’s rear if messed with (after whcih their Dad/brother/male friend will, or all three.)
But you treat them like a lady, they’ll treat you like a man.
Frankly, that terrifies and horrifies libs.
If that sounds good to you, then may I suggest a move?
/a Texan
PS Yes, these are generalizations. There are women (and men) of similar quality in the East and even CA. I know, have lived both places. They’re just far rarer...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.