My name is Brick-in-the-Wall and I was a Neo-Con

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

Yes, before I became this awesome Ron Paul supporting Libertarian, I was a boring Neo-Con. The reason I'm writing this is because I can. I doubt anybody will read it but I want to document, somewhat, my change. I would've been against Ron Paul years ago thinking he was "a wolf in sheep's clothing Liberal" and now I'm a massive supporter. If I can change and walk the walk, others can as well.



Anyway, it started for me at a young age, being a Rush Baby. I was put into a "class" and told this is the "right" class to be in.

My father was a Vietnam Vet and when he came home, was spit on, and called a "baby killer." He was a very hard worker, went from low class, to when he retired being in the upper crust. He despises the welfare class because why can't people work hard the way he did and they'll have money?

He would tell me growing up that "Liberals/Democrats" are happy when troops die, hate Christians, see the Constitution as wasteful, and want a government seen in 1984. I was told these people wanted to steal from you when you worked hard to give it to a lazy person. They were Communist that wanted this country to be Amerika.

"Republicans/Conservatives" on the other hand were the good guys. They supported the troops, obeyed the Constitution, wanted to shrink government, and supported hard workers. Our country is great but if they could just get their way it'd be so much better, because the "bad guy Liberals" who hate America and are trying to destroy it, do whatever they can to stop them. They were the good guy Capitalist fighting those evil Democrat Communist.

As I was exposed to Rush Limbaugh at a young age, this idea grew on steroids. When I was in Jr. High I would rush (no pun) home to catch the last part of his show. Here was a guy sticking it to the Big Government, Troop Hating, Money Stealing, Family Splitting, Pot Pushing Liberals. If you didn't agree with him, you were "one of them America haters."

It all made sense! These Democrats wanted to be modern day kings but lucky for us we had Republicans to stop these jackbooted thugs. These guys would lie, cheat, and steal to get power because they weren't real Christians because real Christians were Republicans and they loved all.

This came thru with gay marriage. These Democrats just want to destroy America more by pushing these "freaks" onto us. I saw gays as people into beastality or incest and treated as not normal. They were a small portion of society that weren't normal and shouldn't be given any rights or heard. People aren't born gay, they choose to be gay. So being ridiculed and treated different is their choice so they shouldn't complain. It was all their fault. Why do they want to get married!? Why don't these gays just marry their dog while they're at it!?

Pot smokers were all Democrats as well. The Republicans were right here because pot will cause you to be stupid and causes people to do bad things. It was right to arrest these people and do everything possible to stop them from smoking because if we didn't stop them, more people would smoke, move on to harder drugs, go crazy, and put severe danger onto our families and communities.

Then 9/11 happened when I was a Freshman in High School. Lets go kick ass! These ragheads hate us because we're free! These are the types of people Democrats like and they were probably happy this happened. Thank God we have a Republican in office!

Then the Republicans took control of both houses. Awesome, now we can get invade Iraq and really take it to those terrorist! We're America! What we do is right, we're the beacon of freedom and liberty, and it's our right to go and right all the wrongs in the world!

This line of thought kept on going close to my senior year of high school and into college.

Why and how did I change? To tell you the truth, I really don't know what THE moment was but it was a slow buildup.

In college I saw honors students, Deans List students, and normal people smoking pot. What!? These people are stupid idiots, why are they smoking!? There must be something I'm missing. So I started to dig and research and I mean really dig and research. You mean, pot isn't all that bad? I was lied to? This can't be.

I had class with a gay kid and got a job with a lesbian. These people aren't freaks at all. They were normal people just trying to live their lives. They weren't evil, weren't hostile to me, and wanted to be the best people they could be, like me. Why am I against what they do again? Why was I so angry at their lifestyle? This doesn't affect me at all and from what I've seen they're very good, loving, kind people. Was I lied to on this as well?

The big moment that really turned my world upside down was Loose Change. I now think they're full of shit partisan hacks for the most part (who edits their theories four different times? missile pods?) but at the time I was blindsided by a truck. The government is all on one team and against me? This can't be right. I found Alex Jones thru this and reexamined Waco.
Not to sidetrack but I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job. Are things covered up? Yes. Were explosives rigged in the WTC? I very highly doubt it but I'm open to the idea, if evidence is brought forth. Loose Change will censor you on their forums and not allow challenges to their arguments. They're like those on Mark Levin's forum just the opposite side.

Anyway, I was still struggling. Waco was caused by Democrats. Republicans were in charge during 9/11. Only Democrats would do that, not Republicans.

I ignored the 2007-2008 election so I didn't know Ron Paul. He was the cooky one right? Wait he was the guy on Die Hard? Or was he the Mormon? That was all I knew.

What changed was before the election, I had several friends going off to Iraq. I didn't want my friends to die but I didn't want them to die for something that I honestly couldn't answer for anymore. When we started in '03 I knew we had to get the terrorist. Why are my friends going over there five years later? Shouldn't we be done? Why haven't we caught these big name terrorist in Iraq?

So my world views had been turned upside down on gays, drugs, and war. I asked myself one day, "Have I been wrong? Is what I believe right?" I started to slowly swallow my pride, open up my mind, and take a look at the other side of the coin.

In late 2008 I got a job at a TV station. What I did was sit at a computer, make sure we stayed on air, and had 10-12 hour days by myself at the computer. It was also a shitty college job if you wanted to party because by the time I got off everybody was passed out when I got there. Anyway, I started to watch YouTube, a whole lot of YouTube. I had also been doing reading on things that had challenged my views. I was watching a George Carlin, or Bill Hicks, clip as I love them both, and in the related videos I saw a Ron Paul video. Again, all I knew of Ron Paul was what I saw on Bruno. I figured what the hell I'll listen, I'm stuck at work for a while so why not watch a video of him.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea what Ron Paul video it was. I think it was a debate, him on Fox News, or something but all it took was one. This changed me. This guy seemed to be against some of the things I was brought up to be against but he supports the Constitution? I mean I had read the Constitution and never thought about rights to gays or drug dealers. I always thought it was the "right thing to do." I thought wiretapping to get the terrorist was "the right thing to do" to be safe.

Can he be right? Is he really honest and truthful about the Constitution? I did more digging.

I was against the bailouts in '08 and so was Ron Paul!? How come I didn't hear about this!? Why was I just now learning about this amazing man!? He had many of the same views I did! The views I, use to, would've disagreed with him in, he articulately crafted an argument that's hard to dismiss.

He wants to protect my friends going over to Iraq? I can get behind that. He wants to leave me alone? I love that. He's for not arresting my friends who smoke pot because they're harmless? I love that too. He's for those who work hard get rewarded and a capitalist? Right on!

To me, Ron Paul is the Apple of politics. Apple just works. (to non-Apple fans, just go with it for now because I like the analogy) Ron Paul just makes sense with no BS. You think there's more to it, but there isn't. I did more research, studied, and I felt like I had a curtain lifted up over my eyes.

The thing for me is I've always, and I mean always, have wanted people to leave me alone. I thought "I'm not a terrorist so they won't come after me" or "I don't do drugs so they won't bang down my door." It takes about 30 seconds to find a story where somebody thought like me and was screwed over by the Government, both parties.

I just want the Government to stay the hell out of my life, let me work and make money, enjoy my money, and do what I feel like doing that isn't hurting anybody else. I like to think I'm a good person, don't treat me like a peon criminal.

Going into 2009 I was a Neo-Con Christian struggling with myself and my religion. Coming out of 2009 I was an Atheist Libertarian Ron Paul supporter.

TL;DR - I was a Right-Wing Neo-Con and became a borderline Anarchist Classic-Liberal Libertarian Ron Paul nut.
George Carlin and Bill Hicks helped guide me to Ron Paul.

[Okie RP fan]

+rep.

Nice write up. We should keep this bumped and let any guests view it who may be browsing the forums.

I was never really a full fledged neo con, but certainly fell for the media's propaganda about the Iraq War, and until a year or two ago, wanted every Muslim dead. Then, I began thinking, how does that show what type of Christian and human being I am? I am not different than some of those who want me or you dead. And then I began reading into the concept of blowback and things related. It all changed for me then.

[Ronulus]

That was a good read. Glad you have awakened. Now the hard part is changing things.

[trey4sports]

born this way

[odamn]

Welcome back from the Dark Side ;- )

[AJ187]

I never cared about politics till Paul's truthful message hit my ears. I probably saw myself as a Democrat since Republicans were in office most of my adolescence.

[Spikender]

Well, I wouldn't say no one would read it, cause I certainly did. I had a similar conversion to you, except mine was only about six months ago when I finally came around to Ron Paul and started to really support him.

What really got me into Ron Paul was looking at the pasts of all the candidates and what they stood for this time around. I didn't pay any attention during the 2008 election... I just didn't care at the time, like a fool. Now, however, I actually examined the candidates and I found that the only person who matched my views was Ron Paul. I guess I should've known... when I was in High School, we took a political test in my History class and it told me I was a Libertarian. Of course, even that test couldn't change me instantly, but it did make me research more about Libertarians. I think the end of High School is actually when I began moving more and more out of my neocon upbringing and into the man I am today.

[surf]

great write-up and welcome to the smart group. you may now sit at the grown-up table

[InTradePro]

+Rep

Nice explanation. From your name I take it your a Pink Flloyd fan?

[braane]

Really nice read. +rep

[Maximus]

Neocon, then the Iraq Surge disillusioned me, and then I found Dr. Paul

[Crickett]

I am so glad you kept at it. It took quite awhile for you to see the truth, but now you are firmly entrenched in it. I do want to address your "God view", though. Religions are sort of like the dogma you grew up with. They all twist the truth. There is a God, indeed. A force within every molecule that is with us at every moment, and in everything. In order to KNOW this, you need to experience it, not just read about or sing about it. With the experience of God, comes the knowledge that It is loving and omniscient, and within you. Jesus said many times and in different ways that God was within you and you could "heal" yourself. What people made out of the stuff Jesus said, was a different story. The Jewish traditions are all skewed too. They even keep an everburning light in the synagogue to remind themselves about the light of God which is withinSIDE of every person (you can be trained to see it) and they forgot about that part. Do not stop looking for this Truth, either.

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

It is unfortunate that you have become an atheist. Perhaps you should consider Deism, like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

They believed in a Creator God, and in a traditional moral order based on the beutiful ideals of Christianity.

They just didnt accept all the superstitions and rituals, but being the intelliegent, scientific men that they were, they KNEW that there is a God that engineered the immensely complex universe. Atheism, with it idea of spontaneously engineered creation,,, is really the nuttiest "religion" of them all.

As for 911...IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB.....100% certainty. Have a look at ae911truth.org


and when your ready for an advanced understanding of the world...have a look at the site in my signature line.

In any event...welcome to the diverse team of Ron Paul lovers!

I said I was "agnostic" for a long time. I guess that might be easier to explain but atheist is along my line of thought.

Is there a god? I do not know. Nobody can say with 100% certainty there is one. Right now I'm in my room and do I know if there's a Pink Unicorn with Bigfoot riding it in my kitchen? I can say, "no" but I can't say with 100% certainty. I can be 99.99% sure but until I go into the kitchen I will never truly know there isn't some unknown wormhole in my kitchen that has Pink Unicorns with Bigfoot riding it transporting from an alternate dimension. Anything is possible.

I know Einstein said it's foolish to say with absolute certainty there is no god. I don't say it with absolute certainty. I'm always open to changing my mind.

With deism and atheism, I see it as an automatic stalemate. I can see the arguments of deist but I lean more towards the atheist side of things. Of course I could be labeled an agnostic for saying I don't know and never truly will know until I die.

As for 9/11, I've seen arguments from both sides. The thing that gets me with Loose Change and such is there is no room for debate. I've seen people banned from their forums for asking hard questions. I see the type of behavior I see from hardcore Rush Limbaugh fans. It comes across as a "I'm right, you're wrong stupid" mentality. As I said, are there things we don't know about? I think so. Have we not been told the entire story? I like to think so. I've seen videos on YouTube of the steel actually twisting and slowly giving out on the WTC which shows no signs of explosives.

I'm a pretty big conspiracy guy but these are the people who couldn't do Waco right. I mean we have paper trails now of Fast and Furious. As I said, I'm open to being shown where and how I'm wrong.

With that said, I'd rather continue this in another thread if need be and not take it off track. I'm more than happy though to have a friendly exchange of ideas on the matter I'd just prefer it not be here, as I said, to not get the thread off track.


+Rep

Nice explanation. From your name I take it your a Pink Flloyd fan?

Oh I love them. They're one of the few bands that as I listen to them, I feel like the music is talking to me personally.

[stang56k]

Welcome, Now you know what it feels like to have the brush fire of liberty burning in your mind!



Also, you forgot to add the position (probably the most important) on the poll for people that had no interest at all and now support Ron Paul.

[nobody's_hero]

Great testimony. Almost fits me perfectly except I was fortunate enough to catch onto Ron Paul in late December 2007. Have you reached that stage where you're angry at the people who tricked you into supporting neo-Conservatism? Friendly warning: it may be coming; I went through a stage like that.

I think there's still a lot of herd mentality in the GOP and I commend you for breaking out of the box.

MOD NOTE: I think we should have a thread dedicated to testimonies and sticky it. Maybe even a new forum so that others who visit the forum can read them and see that not all of us were born this way. All it takes is a few people to start peeling away and others will think, "You know what? It's okay to change my mind."[/mod note]


I said I was "agnostic" for a long time. I guess that might be easier to explain but atheist is along my line of thought.

Is there a god? I do not know. Nobody can say with 100% certainty there is one. Right now I'm in my room and do I know if there's a Pink Unicorn with Bigfoot riding it in my kitchen? I can say, "no" but I can't say with 100% certainty. I can be 99.99% sure but until I go into the kitchen I will never truly know there isn't some unknown wormhole in my kitchen that has Pink Unicorns with Bigfoot riding it transporting from an alternate dimension. Anything is possible.

Might I recommend you read Thomas Paine's, "Age of Reason". I forgot who it was on these forums (I wanna say 'Seraphim') who recommended it in a thread long ago. Read it with a 'relaxed, open mind.' I still choose to believe in God, after reading it, but I have a very ummm . . . .unorthodox perspective.

[milo10]

Brick-in-the-Wall, that was an excellent writeup! Rep to you.

One area that might interest you is looking into AIPAC and the Israel lobby. Mearsheimer & Walt have a great book on the subject, and I know there are a lot of good Youtube videos and so forth on the subject. The campaign does not get into this, and I also think Alex Jones tends to gloss over its importance, although regular guests of his like Paul Craig Roberts emphasize its importance. I tend to look at core neoconservatism as Zionism + Military Industrial Complex wrapped in some traditional conservative rhetoric. I don't think you can completely understand neonconservatism until you understand the Zionist aspect of it.

I tend to agree with you on 9/11. For people who think they have it all figured out one way or the other, I would suggest visiting http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index.php That is a closed forum for knowledgeable 9/11 researchers, most of whom have a background in engineering, physics, chemistry and so forth. They are unlike any other forum in that all views are welcome, there is no biased moderation or member abuse like you see at the various truth forums or JREF. The quality of dialogue is very high.

[z9000]

deleted

[leglock]

Odd you hated liberals, but liked Floyd.

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

Odd you hated liberals, but liked Floyd.

Or being against gays yet loving Elton John and Queen :eek:

[jacmicwag]

Discovered RP by accident during the 88' campaign (and voted for him). Checked out Libertarian writings and decided it wasn't for me. Pretty much forgot about Paul for 20 years and then saw an early debate last cycle. Next thing I know I'm waving signs over freeways in Houston and spending all my time on forums like this.

[leglock]

Or being against gays yet loving Elton John and Queen :eek:

Hahaha...

Did you get the opportunity to catch Roger Waters doing Dark Side or the Wall?

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

Hahaha...

Did you get the opportunity to catch Roger Waters doing Dark Side or the Wall?

I have tickets to see Roger Waters this May in Tulsa.

I've always known he's a Socialist but that never stopped me. I think The Wall is a work of art. I guess the thing for me is it's so open to interpretation that you can look at it and get any idea you really want.

I've even thought of doing a Ron Paul's The Wall and linking his politics to the music.

[Cyberbrain]

Thank you for your insight and perspective Brick, I love these kinds of testimonials. Also don't forget there's some of us on the Liberal side that aren't progressives and thus arn't for big government aka: civil libertarians, true liberals in the older sense of the word. =)

So I liked Ron Paul a lot in 2008 and hoped he would get the nomination, but after he lost I fell in love with Obama. As a constitutional law professor and an advocate for civil liberties and human rights on the campaign trail I thought he was going to be the perfect package after the slightly authoritarian reign of President Bush Jr.....

Now 2012 comes and I can't be more embarrassed... I was a Paul supporter in 2008 but I can't believe I didn't pick him over Obama from the start. I hope a lot of people on the left who are true liberals don't allow this guy to lose again. I also hope progressives vote for him at least based on the anti-war issue. He's not a left or right candidate based on the stupid two way spectrum that's forced onto us, Ron Paul really is a candidate for all Americans.

[limequat]

My god we have more converts than libertarians? Wow!

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

Thank you for your insight and perspective Brick, I love these kinds of testimonials. Also don't forget there's some of us on the Liberal side that aren't progressives and thus arn't for big government aka: civil libertarians, true liberals in the older sense of the word. =)

So I liked Ron Paul a lot in 2008 and hoped he would get the nomination, but after he lost I fell in love with Obama. As a constitutional law professor and an advocate for civil liberties and human rights on the campaign trail I thought he was going to be the perfect package after the slightly authoritarian reign of President Bush Jr.....

Now 2012 comes and I can't be more embarrassed... I was a Paul supporter in 2008 but I can't believe I didn't pick him over Obama from the start. I hope a lot of people on the left who are true liberals don't allow this guy to lose again. I also hope progressives vote for him at least based on the anti-war issue. He's not a left or right candidate based on the stupid two way spectrum that's forced onto us, Ron Paul really is a candidate for all Americans.

There are so many terms I find it almost impossible to label somebody or group of people.

I didn't want to say "Liberal" because I've heard some say that "Classic Liberals" became "Libertarians." I've just linked "Progressives" to the "New Left" because that was the best fit I could think of.

With that said I used "Liberal" in my story because, as mentioned, you get into the Rush Limbaugh mindset and you think "Liberals" are anybody who's against your views. The thing is he has talked about John Locke who is father of *gasp* "Liberalism."

I hate to jump to a hasty generalization but I didn't want to use 57 terms to describe one person. I used broad terms to try to get the point across for the most part.

[SlowSki]

Great thread! I was a neo-con, except for my views on gay marriage and drug legalization. I listened to Rush, Hannity, and Beck almost every day back in 2008. I thought Muslims just hated us. I went to a college with a very large libertarian movement and one of our econ professors is famous in Mises circles. I saw Ron speak at the school and I agreed with everything he said I liked him a lot, but still voted for McCain because I didn't want to "waste my vote". I think the day I really stopped listening to fox news and all the other typical far-right people was when they were protesting that mosque being built near ground zero.

[Anti Federalist]

It's a long journey, and you have taken the first steps.

Welcome aboard.

Remember, that which has been learned, that which has been seen, can never be un-learned or un-seen.

[unknown]

TBH I never gave it much thought but after Bush went into Iraq, I was like this is total BS.

Couple that with FOIA disclosures, stuff like the Gulf of Tonkin lie, the Nurse Nayirah lie, WMDs... Like this sh*t has to stop.

[LawnWake]

I've always been "libertarian" about everything except politics. I never really.. made the link between NAG, personal sovereinty and politics and just accepted democracy and statism as the norm that you have to accept. I never really thought about politics either, I suppose. So I guess that's why I never made the link. Even though I'd been saying very libertarian things ever since I can remember. Hell, when we were taught liberalism in elementary school (this is the Netherlands btw, so it's more the old school definition of it) I could totally get into that and proclaimed myself a 'liberal'.

What I liked about Paul is the fact that he said things I would say while being a politician. It made me look at politics in another way and I started reading about Rothbard and all that crap. The rest is history I suppose.

[deadfish]

Great read Brick, thanks. You sound like one smart dude from the original post and replies.

What authors/books/blogs/etc are you reading now?

[EuRa]

I've always been this way. I dismissed politics because they are all liars and cheaters. No way would I ever find anyone that I believed, even if I liked what I heard.

Then Ron Paul came along. Sounded fishy. I inspected his voting record, and he was legit. No lying. Not only that, but his positions makes you think. I even changed a few of my positions based on what he said. He's entirely right. He's my prophet. :o

[John F Kennedy III]

Yes, before I became this awesome Ron Paul supporting Libertarian, I was a boring Neo-Con. The reason I'm writing this is because I can. I doubt anybody will read it but I want to document, somewhat, my change. I would've been against Ron Paul years ago thinking he was "a wolf in sheep's clothing Liberal" and now I'm a massive supporter. If I can change and walk the walk, others can as well.



Anyway, it started for me at a young age, being a Rush Baby. I was put into a "class" and told this is the "right" class to be in.

My father was a Vietnam Vet and when he came home, was spit on, and called a "baby killer." He was a very hard worker, went from low class, to when he retired being in the upper crust. He despises the welfare class because why can't people work hard the way he did and they'll have money?

He would tell me growing up that "Liberals/Democrats" are happy when troops die, hate Christians, see the Constitution as wasteful, and want a government seen in 1984. I was told these people wanted to steal from you when you worked hard to give it to a lazy person. They were Communist that wanted this country to be Amerika.

"Republicans/Conservatives" on the other hand were the good guys. They supported the troops, obeyed the Constitution, wanted to shrink government, and supported hard workers. Our country is great but if they could just get their way it'd be so much better, because the "bad guy Liberals" who hate America and are trying to destroy it, do whatever they can to stop them. They were the good guy Capitalist fighting those evil Democrat Communist.

As I was exposed to Rush Limbaugh at a young age, this idea grew on steroids. When I was in Jr. High I would rush (no pun) home to catch the last part of his show. Here was a guy sticking it to the Big Government, Troop Hating, Money Stealing, Family Splitting, Pot Pushing Liberals. If you didn't agree with him, you were "one of them America haters."

It all made sense! These Democrats wanted to be modern day kings but lucky for us we had Republicans to stop these jackbooted thugs. These guys would lie, cheat, and steal to get power because they weren't real Christians because real Christians were Republicans and they loved all.

This came thru with gay marriage. These Democrats just want to destroy America more by pushing these "freaks" onto us. I saw gays as people into beastality or incest and treated as not normal. They were a small portion of society that weren't normal and shouldn't be given any rights or heard. People aren't born gay, they choose to be gay. So being ridiculed and treated different is their choice so they shouldn't complain. It was all their fault. Why do they want to get married!? Why don't these gays just marry their dog while they're at it!?

Pot smokers were all Democrats as well. The Republicans were right here because pot will cause you to be stupid and causes people to do bad things. It was right to arrest these people and do everything possible to stop them from smoking because if we didn't stop them, more people would smoke, move on to harder drugs, go crazy, and put severe danger onto our families and communities.

Then 9/11 happened when I was a Freshman in High School. Lets go kick ass! These ragheads hate us because we're free! These are the types of people Democrats like and they were probably happy this happened. Thank God we have a Republican in office!

Then the Republicans took control of both houses. Awesome, now we can get invade Iraq and really take it to those terrorist! We're America! What we do is right, we're the beacon of freedom and liberty, and it's our right to go and right all the wrongs in the world!

This line of thought kept on going close to my senior year of high school and into college.

Why and how did I change? To tell you the truth, I really don't know what THE moment was but it was a slow buildup.

In college I saw honors students, Deans List students, and normal people smoking pot. What!? These people are stupid idiots, why are they smoking!? There must be something I'm missing. So I started to dig and research and I mean really dig and research. You mean, pot isn't all that bad? I was lied to? This can't be.

I had class with a gay kid and got a job with a lesbian. These people aren't freaks at all. They were normal people just trying to live their lives. They weren't evil, weren't hostile to me, and wanted to be the best people they could be, like me. Why am I against what they do again? Why was I so angry at their lifestyle? This doesn't affect me at all and from what I've seen they're very good, loving, kind people. Was I lied to on this as well?

The big moment that really turned my world upside down was Loose Change. I now think they're full of shit partisan hacks for the most part (who edits their theories four different times? missile pods?) but at the time I was blindsided by a truck. The government is all on one team and against me? This can't be right. I found Alex Jones thru this and reexamined Waco.
Not to sidetrack but I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job. Are things covered up? Yes. Were explosives rigged in the WTC? I very highly doubt it but I'm open to the idea, if evidence is brought forth. Loose Change will censor you on their forums and not allow challenges to their arguments. They're like those on Mark Levin's forum just the opposite side.

Anyway, I was still struggling. Waco was caused by Democrats. Republicans were in charge during 9/11. Only Democrats would do that, not Republicans.

I ignored the 2007-2008 election so I didn't know Ron Paul. He was the cooky one right? Wait he was the guy on Die Hard? Or was he the Mormon? That was all I knew.

What changed was before the election, I had several friends going off to Iraq. I didn't want my friends to die but I didn't want them to die for something that I honestly couldn't answer for anymore. When we started in '03 I knew we had to get the terrorist. Why are my friends going over there five years later? Shouldn't we be done? Why haven't we caught these big name terrorist in Iraq?

So my world views had been turned upside down on gays, drugs, and war. I asked myself one day, "Have I been wrong? Is what I believe right?" I started to slowly swallow my pride, open up my mind, and take a look at the other side of the coin.

In late 2008 I got a job at a TV station. What I did was sit at a computer, make sure we stayed on air, and had 10-12 hour days by myself at the computer. It was also a shitty college job if you wanted to party because by the time I got off everybody was passed out when I got there. Anyway, I started to watch YouTube, a whole lot of YouTube. I had also been doing reading on things that had challenged my views. I was watching a George Carlin, or Bill Hicks, clip as I love them both, and in the related videos I saw a Ron Paul video. Again, all I knew of Ron Paul was what I saw on Bruno. I figured what the hell I'll listen, I'm stuck at work for a while so why not watch a video of him.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea what Ron Paul video it was. I think it was a debate, him on Fox News, or something but all it took was one. This changed me. This guy seemed to be against some of the things I was brought up to be against but he supports the Constitution? I mean I had read the Constitution and never thought about rights to gays or drug dealers. I always thought it was the "right thing to do." I thought wiretapping to get the terrorist was "the right thing to do" to be safe.

Can he be right? Is he really honest and truthful about the Constitution? I did more digging.

I was against the bailouts in '08 and so was Ron Paul!? How come I didn't hear about this!? Why was I just now learning about this amazing man!? He had many of the same views I did! The views I, use to, would've disagreed with him in, he articulately crafted an argument that's hard to dismiss.

He wants to protect my friends going over to Iraq? I can get behind that. He wants to leave me alone? I love that. He's for not arresting my friends who smoke pot because they're harmless? I love that too. He's for those who work hard get rewarded and a capitalist? Right on!

To me, Ron Paul is the Apple of politics. Apple just works. (to non-Apple fans, just go with it for now because I like the analogy) Ron Paul just makes sense with no BS. You think there's more to it, but there isn't. I did more research, studied, and I felt like I had a curtain lifted up over my eyes.

The thing for me is I've always, and I mean always, have wanted people to leave me alone. I thought "I'm not a terrorist so they won't come after me" or "I don't do drugs so they won't bang down my door." It takes about 30 seconds to find a story where somebody thought like me and was screwed over by the Government, both parties.

I just want the Government to stay the hell out of my life, let me work and make money, enjoy my money, and do what I feel like doing that isn't hurting anybody else. I like to think I'm a good person, don't treat me like a peon criminal.

Going into 2009 I was a Neo-Con Christian struggling with myself and my religion. Coming out of 2009 I was an Atheist Libertarian Ron Paul supporter.

TL;DR - I was a Right-Wing Neo-Con and became a borderline Anarchist Classic-Liberal Libertarian Ron Paul nut.
George Carlin and Bill Hicks helped guide me to Ron Paul.

Amazing post and welcome to the forums :)

I also love George Carlin and Bill Hicks :)

[EuRa]

The original post on this thread was awesome. I can almost entire relate being raised on a very Republican household. Right from being told that Rush was "the show" to listen to, all the way to the thing about gay people and the thing about drugs, right to my college experiences. All literally the same, except it was from my mom, not dad, that did all the pushing. We differ because I never really believed what she said anyway. I never followed her beliefs or ideas, I just listened and formed my own opinion, even when I was 10. She hated that, literally disowned me at times because I disagreed with her, about gay people especially.

Your read was a great read. I don't normally read long posts like that because they pertain to an individuals life experiences, and I really don't care. But yours captured my attention, and I thank you for sharing it. +rep btw.

[affa]

George Carlin is absolutely the man and dropped truth bombs just like Ron Paul does. wish he was still here.

[WIRP]

I was politically apathetic.

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

Great read Brick, thanks. You sound like one smart dude from the original post and replies.

What authors/books/blogs/etc are you reading now?

I really don't follow too many blogs. There's a guy on Facebook I follow that writes "Classical Liberal = Libertarian Conservative." He's a Ron Paul supporter and writes some pretty good articles.

I mean there's a couple of blogs I stop by and read here and there but there's none I follow religiously. The only one I did follow was back in high school and that was Maddox. He wasn't political but he did have several political issues. David Thorne is another writer I enjoy reading.

I just got done reading Penn Jillette's book not too long ago. I've always loved Bullshit and was sad to hear it wasn't coming back. Wasn't a bad read and I enjoyed his views on Atheism but I really wish he would've done more on his Libertarianism. I hope he does another one focused more on his political views.

Christopher Hitchens was a guy I didn't agree with on many issues but he was such a amazing writer that I have several of his books. I was really sad to hear he died this past week.

I would say my first book I read just for the politics was Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers when I was 15. At the time I thought it was great but looking at it now he was advocating a Fascist Police State. However what he said about Western Democracies failing when the people learn to vote themselves money and entitlements was spot on I thought.


George Carlin is absolutely the man and dropped truth bombs just like Ron Paul does. wish he was still here.

This video right here Carlin did was just spot on. I know some old timer Carlin fans who didn't like his later stuff because he got too "preachy and bitter" but I thought that right before he died was some of his greatest work.

LANGUAGE NSFW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

It's amazing how a comedian was predicting the bailouts yet many "professionals" were caught flat footed.

[jcarcinogen]

I've been a libertarian since 1999 but Ron Paul changed my opinion on abortion explaining that individualism must support life. His delivering 4000 babies and his stories of murdered babies in trash bins moved me I think because he doesn't get extreme and I know he is genuinely a good hearted man.

[JohnGalt1225]

While I voted former progressive, I have actually been both. Throughout high school I was a dedicated neocon. I bought Hannity books, watched Fox religiously, volunteered to get W. reelected (*vomits*), etc. Then shortly after I graduated I became disillusioned with the two party system and moved further to the left in my views. I loved (and still do to an extent) Ralph Nader and voted for him in 2008. I mostly considered myself "progressive" because I was anti-war, for a peaceful foreign policy, I didn't support the two party system, I saw how the unholy alliance between state and corporation was destroying the country, and I didn't see anyone other than progressives discussing these issues.

Then I discovered Ron Paul. I found a man who didn't sign off on the MIC and the crony capitalist system but also espoused economic views that I felt more naturally inclined towards.

[KingRobbStark]

I supported Ron Paul the moment I heard him on youtube. As soon as I discovered him I became an avid Paul activist. Everyone in my old high school know who Ron Paul is, and everyone in college will as well.

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

Oh yeah...


Amount: $250.00
Transaction ID: 326753546
Transaction date/time: 2011-12-18 14:48:28

Before Ron Paul I've never given money to any sort of political campaign or politician. With this money bomb I've given over $500 since the start of his campaign.

[jcarcinogen]

Btw, great original post! :cool:

[mport1]

I've been a libertarian since I started paying attention in 2004.

[Jingles]

I went from being a typical, Fox watching, Bush cheering Republican to an AnCap. It has been a process of course, but To look back at myself when I was 16 watching O'reilly and Hannity as if they were somehow the best political minds disgusts me. I truly was young and dumb.

During/right after the General election McCain v. Obama I discovered Ron Paul (I had some friends that were libertarians and heard his name mentioned a few times. I decided to look him up), read The Revolution: A Manifesto and from then a lot of things just clicked and changed instantly for me. My conversion from Neocon to traditional conservative/minarchist libertarian was instantaneous. Every since then I just progressively became more anarchist and at this point I can I am an AnCap.

I think part of my issue was (looking back) I had so many libertarian leanings, but felt they were wrong because "Republicans are supposed to say and believe X". I was really stuck in the party/media mentality, but I always believed in limited government (It disgusts me to think at one point in my life I tried to justify the horrid actions of the state with any excuse I could come up with... So young, so dumb). That's why I think my conversation was so instantaneous because it was like opening your eyes for the first time and being like "Oh, well that's obviously wrong, this is wrong, this is right, this is what this is, etc..." Everything just clicked.

[affa]

I would say my first book I read just for the politics was Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers when I was 15. At the time I thought it was great but looking at it now he was advocating a Fascist Police State. However what he said about Western Democracies failing when the people learn to vote themselves money and entitlements was spot on I thought.


I love RAH, though agree Starship Troopers is essentially an endorsement for a near-fascist police state. However, I think his novel A Stranger in a Strange Land more than makes up for it; while I don't agree with everything in ASIASL (specifically, there are a few rare, but deplorable views on woman and homosexuality) it is, otherwise, a tremendous book. I credit it with helping me to awaken (thankfully very early in my life, as I was a voracious reader) more than any other single source.



This video right here Carlin did was just spot on. I know some old timer Carlin fans who didn't like his later stuff because he got too "preachy and bitter" but I thought that right before he died was some of his greatest work.


I owe Carlin a debt of gratitude. I remember being fairly down in the dumps (this is over 15 years ago)... at the time, I knew no like minds, which can be a surefire way to start feeling crazy sometimes. And I didn't own a television, but was watching someone's house for them, and flipped it on... Carlin was doing a routine. And it just floored me. He just went from topic to topic, dropping truth. I immediately realized I wasn't alone.

The next public speaker that I was so blown away by took years to find... and his name is Ron Paul.

[cajuncocoa]

I was probably a neocon before I had ever heard the word. 9-11 changed me; it was obvious that the W. Bush administration was just looking for a reason to invade Iraq. I was also thoroughly disgusted with the way they used the attacks to continue to frighten the public, beginning with the anthrax mailings immediately following the WTC attack. I'm not completely convinced that 9-11 was an inside job (I tend to believe Bush let it happen on purpose) but I do believe the anthrax mailings were orchestrated by the Bush administration. Anyway, by the time we actually invaded Iraq, I was completely awake and ready to make some changes.

[freeforall]

My oldest brother was and still is a Rush baby. He used to call me a pinko commie before I even knew the meaning of politics. You know, they days when if everyone would give one thing from their lunch box to someone who didn't have anything to eat there would be no world hunger. As I grew up, I thought about how the hierarchy works a lot and voted as a libertarian when I turned 18 believing we should all have the right to choose our own way. Then I started to focus more on local politics and took pride in tax hikes that supported local projects. I still see this as a beneficial way for government to work, however, that thinking spilled over into a federal level for a while. Ron Paul has opened my eyes to the fact that I strayed from the belief that government should be local and that the people directly affected by their decisions should be the ones that make those decisions.

[brandon]

I read the whole thing OP. You're a good writer. It was easy to follow and well organized. Glad to have you with us!

[Blue]

Ron Paul woke me up right after the '08 crash. I knew we needed to repair our broken system and Ron was the only putting forth real ideas on how to fix it. My life has changed for the better because of it. The message of freedom and liberty is just so great to spread.

[rp713]

for me, religion was a much harder battle to overcome. when i came to the realization that who knows if god is there or not. i felt extremely guilty for a long time, years. at first i was in denial, i didnt wanna accept it. then i was stuck in the middle, and thought i was gonna go to hell. after more research though the fear went away, and started to accept my agnosticism. now i have no regrets. im glad i kept at it, and kept researching. i still look at other religious writings/other theories for intellectual reasons and you never know what you might find out.

the switch from obama to ron paul though wasnt that hard. i always thought why cant we just mind our own business, why intervene in every little thing in the world? was always anti-war, and wasnt that knowledgeable to have an opinion on domestic policy. so after watching ron, and doing my research. i pretty much agree with everything he says.

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

for me, religion was a much harder battle to overcome. when i came to the realization that who knows if god is there or not. i felt extremely guilty for a long time, years. at first i was in denial, i didnt wanna accept it. then i was stuck in the middle, and thought i was gonna go to hell. after more research though the fear went away, and started to accept my agnosticism. now i have no regrets. im glad i kept at it, and kept researching. i still look at other religious writings/other theories for intellectual reasons and you never know what you might find out.

the switch from obama to ron paul though wasnt that hard. i always thought why cant we just mind our own business, why intervene in every little thing in the world? was always anti-war, and wasnt that knowledgeable to have an opinion on domestic policy. so after watching ron, and doing my research. i pretty much agree with everything he says.

Oh I agree religion was the one that I had struggled with for a long, long, long time.

My Neo-Con views started to change around 19 and by 22 I was a completely different person in my views.

Religion was something I started to question and think about when I was around 14 and it was something I struggled with for almost 10 years.

[rp713]

Oh I agree religion was the one that I had struggled with for a long, long, long time.

My Neo-Con views started to change around 19 and by 22 I was a completely different person in my views.

Religion was something I started to question and think about when I was around 14 and it was something I struggled with for almost 10 years.

well i always hated going to church. it was a chore and i was going through the motions. as a kid, it was boring. no matter what they did to make the youth classes fun, i just wasnt interested. i believed there was a god because thats what i was told and didnt question it. but i hated church. it cut into my important saturday morning cartoons. lol. sounds ridiculous but thats what was important to me at the time. school all week, cartoons in the morning on weekend with my 2 bowls of cereal. lol. then my parents started going to this church where they believed saturday was the sabbath day, and you werent suppose to do anything secular on that day and only think about god, and watch godly things all day from sunset friday to sunset saturday. i hated it because all we would do is go to church for like 4 hours in the morning, come home, eat lunch, take a long ass nap. wake up, read the bible and/or watch sermons on vhs till sundown. then got back to watching secular things. it was a routine that lasted for years. i hated it and was so bored. so when we finally got a computer right when the internet was getting popular, i started doing my own research around 16-17 and came to the realization. it was a long road, but i think it was worth it.

[Jingles]

Oh I agree religion was the one that I had struggled with for a long, long, long time.

My Neo-Con views started to change around 19 and by 22 I was a completely different person in my views.

Religion was something I started to question and think about when I was around 14 and it was something I struggled with for almost 10 years.

I went from Atheist to Agnostic personally. I was an Atheist NeoCon Republican and so were the majority of my friends. Religion was never a big thing in my family. I went through confirmation, but that was it. That was like the only time we ever went to church. From a young age I pretty much accepted there was no god. My family is all democrats too. So within the household of semi-christian democrats I became an atheist neocon republican to then find Ron Paul to become a tradition conservative/minarchist libertarian to progress over those years to now be an agnostic (religion wise) Anarcho-Capitalist.

How I made it here is beyond me, but I'm here. Let's keep spreading the message of liberty so others can find it as well!

[ConsideringRonPaul]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

[Jingles]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

I was never a democrat/liberal nor am I a truther (and never have been). I just thought the Republican party stood for limited government so I supported it. Then I realized it didn't and Ron Paul showed me what limited constitutional government was and how to defend it by sticking to your moral belief in liberty and sticking to principle.

Also remember its about the individual. We unite to defend/fight for liberty, but we come from all walks of life and etc... What matters is our belief in what the role of government ought to be and we are to be free to believe/do as we wish as long as we don't infringe upon the rights of others. You don't have to endorse someone else's religion or lack there of to support liberty and etc...

[Ronulus]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

I don't get your point. People come from all different social views and beliefs. You can't simply state everyone agrees on every single topic. I am not an atheist, 9/11 truther, former democrat, drug user, or 'social liberal'. As far as social liberalism goes, I think there are things that are acceptable and those that are not. However it is not the governments job nor my job to try and force everyone to my viewpoints. It is my duty to raise my kids and family to be as moral and respectful as possible to others.

How can you say you don't want to associate with 'those people' when you are not sure about who we are.

[ryanmkeisling]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

No one is trying to associate you with any of "those" types, you are doing that in your own mind. Ron Paul is for freedom above all else, if you like freedom join the club. Stop worrying about what the rest of the world thinks, people change. I used to be a lot of things but now I am just a farmer. At the end of the day, we are all made of the same stuff. If you aren't ready to include yourself for the better of your country, you aren't ready for freedom, the rest of your worries are trivial in comparison...

[Eric39]

I'd say I'm still a progressive, but I see Ron Pauls plans as the best for achieving the society I would like.

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

Funny this sounds a little bit like me in regards to my story.

Social Issues

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marijuana or gay marriage? It's automatically a 10th amendment issue which Ron Paul has stated. How is this wrong?

Atheist

What's wrong with Atheist again? I do Relay for Life every single year at my college, volunteered at the Veterans Hospital, give to charity, and try to be a good person. How is that bad? I'm actually almost exactly like a Christian, I just go one god further in my disbelief.

9/11 Truthers

While I don't buy Loose Change, do you disagree with the notion that our Government has done terrible things in the past? The Clinton Administration killed people in cold blood at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Ever heard of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments? How about the entire Gulf of Tonkin lie to get us into Vietnam? Our Government has lied and done very bad things in the past so they must always be questioned and put under the microscope.

Former Democrats

The option leading in the poll is "Neo-Con" and I'm pretty sure that's Republican.

Drug Users

Alcohol is considered a mind altering substance. Rush Limbaugh was addicted to the consumer version of heroin. George W. Bush snorted coke. The past three presidents have gone on record stating illegal drug use. Marijuana is scientifically proven to be less harmful than both of these substances. The U.S. Government has a patent on medical marijuana. Which drugs are you talking about? What's wrong with them?

[Justinfrom1776]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

Welcome to the forum... I hope you stick around.

[dolphin]

I reposted this exact same poll in another forum.

This forum is not a political forum, or a Ron Paul forum.

Here...
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-POLL-Did-you-change-because-of-Ron-Paul

[affa]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

Liberty unites everyone. Everyone. This is what made America great --- everyone can get behind the cause of liberty, even people you disagree with. If you have a problem with that, it's on you, not on the message of liberty.

Besides, there is a massive contingent of Christians for Ron Paul on these forums. Do I post there that they are hurting the cause? No, obviously not. We're all rooting for the same man.

[Liberty74]

Ex neocon here. :D

[wgadget]

I appreciate your post, Brick. The only thing that is a little disturbing is that you are now an atheist. There's such a thing as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. These evangelicals are just asleep. It's up to us to wake them up.

God works in mysterious ways.

;)

[mosquitobite]

I appreciate your post, Brick. The only thing that is a little disturbing is that you are now an atheist. There's such a thing as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. These evangelicals are just asleep. It's up to us to wake them up.

God works in mysterious ways.

;)
+1

I am a born again Christian. I despise the Religious Right for what they've done to *MY* party!

[Sola_Fide]

Welcome here. I have had similar experiences except for this last part:


Going into 2009 I was a Neo-Con Christian struggling with myself and my religion. Coming out of 2009 I was an Atheist Libertarian Ron Paul supporter.

Might I suggest that not all Christians are warmongers (including Ron Paul). The majority of my Christian brothers are either principled non-voters, Ron Paul supporters, or Constitution Party guys. They do not endorse force or war.

There are different religions out there. Some who call themselves Christian are not. You have to be careful, because it is your soul that is hanging in the balance.

[Hospitaller]

Great read, i also started my anti government mentality with loose change

[tremendoustie]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

Well, my personal views are socially conservative, I'm a Christian, I'm not a 9/11 truther, I've never voted democrat, and I've never used drugs.

But, the great thing about freedom is that I don't have to agree with another person 100% in order for us both to agree that we shouldn't use the government to infringe on each other's liberties. That's why they say, freedom brings people together. Big government pits every group against every other group, for handouts, special privileges, control of prohibitions/regulations, etc.

[heavenlyboy34]

I pick "other". I became a libertarian several months before I discovered RP, but I was a neocon "Rush baby" before that. The first political book I ever read was "See I Told You So". I don't really have a label for my particular brand of libertarianism though. One of the most important things to me is Misesian micro-secession.

[heavenlyboy34]

Welcome here. I have had similar experiences except for this last part:



Might I suggest that not all Christians are warmongers (including Ron Paul). The majority of my Christian brothers are either principled non-voters, Ron Paul supporters, or Constitution Party guys. They do not endorse force or war.

There are different religions out there. Some who call themselves Christian are not. You have to be careful, because it is your soul that is hanging in the balance. qft!! Lawrence Vance has written some great stuff, and I think the OP would like him. A lot of it is free online-just google his name.

[braane]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

We don't pass judgement on those who come here to support Ron, so we hope that those who are coming to support Ron won't judge us. We don't have to agree on personal issues to have the same vision for our government. If we are going to fix the country, we need to put our personal qualms aside and get people elected who can do that. So I hope that you will reconsider your stance, and come join the revolution.

The forum also contains people who supported McCain in 08' and people who supported GWB before that, for the record. Ron Paul brings voters from all over because he has a message that anyone can get behind, regardless of party affiliation. That doesn't change the fact that his policies are conservative.

[Sola_Fide]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."


Considering,

PLEASE view my post history. I have gone out of my way to give the Christian case for liberty. I am a Reformed Christian and very strong Ron Paul supporter.

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

I appreciate your post, Brick. The only thing that is a little disturbing is that you are now an atheist. There's such a thing as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. These evangelicals are just asleep. It's up to us to wake them up.

God works in mysterious ways.

;)

Just curious, how is it disturbing? I don't see being an Atheist a bad thing just as I don't see somebody being Christian as a bad thing. That's your decision and your belief.


Welcome here. I have had similar experiences except for this last part:

Might I suggest that not all Christians are warmongers (including Ron Paul). The majority of my Christian brothers are either principled non-voters, Ron Paul supporters, or Constitution Party guys. They do not endorse force or war.

There are different religions out there. Some who call themselves Christian are not. You have to be careful, because it is your soul that is hanging in the balance.

I must say that my path from Neo-Con to Libertarian was different from the path from Christianity to Atheism.

I don't see why some are upset by this. I think it's great that Ron Paul, a very devout Christian, can move an Atheist such as myself.

The thing is I've always had doubt even at an early age. I was "saved" and tried to live my life in a Christian manner. I never heard from or felt moved by a god. I researched symbolism and all sorts of things trying to see if there was some hidden messages or clues I was being left. I went to church, rededicated my life, studied the Bible, and tried my hardest to fix what I thought was wrong with me. Still, there was nothing. I felt nothing, wasn't moved, or felt like there was any presence in my life trying to help or guide me.

I guess the thing that kept me on for as long as it did was my parents, friends, family, and just being raised where everybody went to church. If everybody did it, it had to be true. I figured something was wrong with me because I can't be the only one doing all of this and getting nothing in return. Everybody I know couldn't be wrong could they?

I felt like my spiritual life was standing by a wall trying to get a response from somebody on the other side. It was like I was literally talking and praying to a wall. I finally let go because I spent years trying to find god and got nothing. There is no god in my mind and if he or she wants to change it they know where to find me.

Like I said, this happened and was separated from my political philosophies.

[SchleckBros]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

I can't speak for everyone but I am personally a social conservative, christian, former republican, and not a 9/11 truther.

[ConsideringRonPaul]

My real point was that the vast majority of RP supporters are were at one time or still are one of the things I listed; not that most have all or even a few of those traits. Most of the responses make sense, I guess I don't have to agree with someone on everything to agree with them on liberty. But still, it feels weird to think about uniting with the groups of people I listed as I am pretty much the antithesis of everything such people espouse (aka I'm probably the most conservative person I know on any issue). It feels more comfortable to be with republicans whom I know I share my moral values with (altho the fact that few of the candidates stay true to the actual constitution is the reason I've been looking for a more viable candidate, right now Paul is definitely a consideration).
To respond to Brick in particular as he started the thread, you are correct about social issues as the Constitution is silent on them, I don't contest that. It is a states rights issue, altho I would not be opposed to a life amendment to protect life for the unborn. I actually find not that opposed to Paul on the issue of marriage as his view is to keep government out of it altogether (I've always believed it should be done in churches as well). As for drugs, it would indeed save a lot of money if the federal government got out of that war and let the states handle it. Atheism is where I lose you. You turn into a moral relativist. Doing the run for life and volunteering are great imo, but there's no real objective basis for your morality. Besides how can you really define "being a good person" person without God. All relative, no agreement there. I don’t think I could live in a society of people like that where "goodness" is defined by the person. The government must be put under the microscope indeed and yes it has made mistakes (and not just in foreign policy obviously). But the fact is there are a lot of RP supporters who think the Bush administration was behind the death of 3,000 Americans and the administration was filled with “glee”, as Paul puts it, after that event. That sickens me. While Bush had his policy problems like excessive spending, I would never go so far as to even hint at the idea that he was behind the attacks. Neo-con is leading in the poll, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that many progressives (as evidenced by the poll) support paul as well. The democratic party is the antithesis of my beliefs and if someone who supported those policies now supports the same guy I support, logically I feel something wrong is going on. Finally with drugs: most of those who have been on highly addictive drugs will tell you the craving never truly goes away. By allowing things like heroin and cocaine to be freely sold, many will unwillingly be tricked into addictions that they will have no control of (for example 98% of heroin users are addicted after the first use). And marijuana is not a completely harmless drug as many make it up to be. It’s mentally addictive, has lingering effects and greatly impairs driving ability (think school bus drivers), is a huge gateway drug, raises the risk of heart attack greatly while high, has much more carcinogens than a cigarette when consumed in its most common method of consumption, etc etc. And yes alcohol and tobacco are both drugs and dangerous. But the solution is not to allow for more dangerous drugs to be legally bought and sold, addicting more people and enslaving them (as opposed to the argument that there is more liberty to let people use drugs). Bush and Rush both used drugs but both greatly regret that decision and advise others against doing them as opposed to libertarians who think anyone and everyone can buy/ sell any drug/substance. As for the govt having a pension on medical marijuana, that’s ridiculous imo. Besides, synthetic marinol exists and defeats the argument that cancer patients need smokeable pot.

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

My real point was that the vast majority of RP supporters are were at one time or still are one of the things I listed; not that most have all or even a few of those traits. Most of the responses make sense, I guess I don't have to agree with someone on everything to agree with them on liberty.

You will never 100% agree with somebody. It's just the way things are. I once tried to look for the "perfect candidate" and it's impossible. The thing is to find somebody who you don't agree with on issues but philosophy.



But still, it feels weird to think about uniting with the groups of people I listed as I am pretty much the antithesis of everything such people espouse (aka I'm probably the most conservative person I know on any issue). It feels more comfortable to be with republicans whom I know I share my moral values with (altho the fact that few of the candidates stay true to the actual constitution is the reason I've been looking for a more viable candidate, right now Paul is definitely a consideration).

Isn't that what everybody is looking for? You're interested in a candidate which means he has said things you agree with and make sense to you I'm assuming. The fact is people from the other side are interested in him as well. Isn't it a good thing a candidate can bring people together from different backgrounds, ideas, political theories, and philosophies? If people are united, can't more get done?



To respond to Brick in particular as he started the thread, you are correct about social issues as the Constitution is silent on them, I don't contest that. It is a states rights issue, altho I would not be opposed to a life amendment to protect life for the unborn. I actually find not that opposed to Paul on the issue of marriage as his view is to keep government out of it altogether (I've always believed it should be done in churches as well). As for drugs, it would indeed save a lot of money if the federal government got out of that war and let the states handle it.

Alright we can agree on this.


Atheism is where I lose you. You turn into a moral relativist. Doing the run for life and volunteering are great imo, but there's no real objective basis for your morality. Besides how can you really define "being a good person" person without God. All relative, no agreement there. I don’t think I could live in a society of people like that where "goodness" is defined by the person.

The thing is I'm an Atheist supporting Ron Paul because our ideas aren't forced on one another. If I were President, I wouldn't ban the first amendment or ban Christianity. Regardless if you think morality comes from god or the survival of the fittest, the Constitution protects those, Christian or none, from their beliefs.

I believe everybody deserve life, liberty, and property and me trying to infringe on your beliefs would violate that.


The government must be put under the microscope indeed and yes it has made mistakes (and not just in foreign policy obviously). But the fact is there are a lot of RP supporters who think the Bush administration was behind the death of 3,000 Americans and the administration was filled with “glee”, as Paul puts it, after that event. That sickens me. While Bush had his policy problems like excessive spending, I would never go so far as to even hint at the idea that he was behind the attacks.

Yes, there are some even on this form that think it was an inside job. The thing is, ideas like this aren't new. I've heard from people in their 30's to 40's that their Yellow Dog Democrat parents went to their graves believing Nixon had Kennedy assassinated. Is that the same as Bush and 9/11? No but it shows that people have been skeptical of our government for a while and will put nothing past them.

I use to be of the "that's impossible so I'm not even going to look into it or debate the people" type. The thing is, what kind of person would I be if I didn't try to learn and shut my mind out? I've gone thru 9/11 and while many things make me raise my eyebrows, I don't believe explosives were placed in the WTC. If I just blew it off, if somebody challenged my view, I'd have no evidence or research that I've looked into to back up my claims.

As for the "glee" comment, there are actually some comments and reports out there that some in the Bush Administration were eager about going into Iraq very early and right around the time after 9/11.


Neo-con is leading in the poll, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that many progressives (as evidenced by the poll) support paul as well. The democratic party is the antithesis of my beliefs and if someone who supported those policies now supports the same guy I support, logically I feel something wrong is going on.

Isn't that some good credit to give to Ron Paul? As I said above, here's a candidate that you're interested in and he's bringing in people you're opposed to.


Finally with drugs: most of those who have been on highly addictive drugs will tell you the craving never truly goes away. By allowing things like heroin and cocaine to be freely sold, many will unwillingly be tricked into addictions that they will have no control of (for example 98% of heroin users are addicted after the first use). And marijuana is not a completely harmless drug as many make it up to be. It’s mentally addictive, has lingering effects and greatly impairs driving ability (think school bus drivers), is a huge gateway drug, raises the risk of heart attack greatly while high, has much more carcinogens than a cigarette when consumed in its most common method of consumption, etc etc. And yes alcohol and tobacco are both drugs and dangerous. But the solution is not to allow for more dangerous drugs to be legally bought and sold, addicting more people and enslaving them (as opposed to the argument that there is more liberty to let people use drugs). Bush and Rush both used drugs but both greatly regret that decision and advise others against doing them as opposed to libertarians who think anyone and everyone can buy/ sell any drug/substance. As for the govt having a pension on medical marijuana, that’s ridiculous imo. Besides, synthetic marinol exists and defeats the argument that cancer patients need smokeable pot.

I don't want to turn this into a debate on the War on Drugs. I have all sorts of links and studies that I can post but I'll try to break this down.

Let us look at guns and gun control.

We hear arguments that guns cause violent crime, more deaths, and are a danger to society. The thing is in places they're banned, crime goes up. We look at the other side with drugs and we see the collapse of society, crime, deaths, and such but the ban doesn't work.

I know, the second amendment of the Constitution gives us the right to firearms yet that didn't stop the D.C. gun ban or the one in Chicago. Does the government have the right to come into your home and take a firearm you own? To switch that to the other side, does the government have the right to go into somebody's home?

If somebody is under the influence of something, gets on the road, and kills somebody, they're taking their right to life and should be punished. Somebody who does drugs in their home is not harming another's right to life or liberty. The same way somebody with a gun in their home isn't putting somebody's right to life or liberty at risk.

It's the same thing with religion. We have the right to religion and free speech. What happens if we feel something is a danger and threat? Westboro Baptist Church spews hate and protest at soldiers funerals. What if we pass a law to protect these soldier's families and any church that spews anti-gay hate messages can't protest? What if we go a little further and ban certain Christian churches because they're at risk? What if we ban certain words and languages? Once we do, what's to stop us from going further?

That's the thing with Ron Paul. He's for protecting everybody's right to life, liberty, and property.

I cannot and will not govern you. Why? I, as an individual, am responsible for me and only me. If I want to own a gun for protection, that's my right. However if I'm out in my front yard waving it around, it goes off, and hits you across the street, that's my fault.

Would it be right of the government to then pass a ban saying nobody can carry a gun in their front yard? Why should you be punished for my actions? I'm the one who screwed up, I'm the one who would be taken to court, and I would be the one who would be punished. Because I took my rights for granted doesn't mean yours should be restricted. The same goes for drinking. I can drink in my house but getting into a car and going on the road puts your life in danger and I should be punished.

I mean, there are many things many of us disagree with but if you believe in liberty, you believe in the freedom of others. Personally, I think it's sick for mothers to put their five year old daughters into beauty pageants and wrong on many levels. The thing is, it's not my child and I have no right to tell them what to do. Just the way many people feel that others shouldn't tell them how to raise their children.

When it comes to freedom, the individual is the one with the greatest power because giving it to others to be fair can lead to very bad things. I know what's best for myself and you know what's best for you. I don't know and will never know what's best for you and I shouldn't have the power to run your life. As long as you're not restricting my rights or threatening my life, you should be free to do as you please.

[mosquitobite]

My point was that many progressives (as evidenced by the poll) support paul as well. The democratic party is the antithesis of my beliefs and if someone who supported those policies now supports the same guy I support, logically I feel something wrong is going on.

I feel the same. I have never ever voted Democrat once. I just can't stomach the thought. But then, I came to realize that the Republicans do the same thing (increase government) they just do it in different areas.

On one hand, people in the Republican party support Romney because they think he has the best chance at winning against Obama. Why? Ask yourself WHY DO THEY THINK THAT? Oh - that's right - because he's a moderate who will not cut spending. He also will not cut wars, so he gets both sides of the aisle for big government. They think he has the best shot with independents and disgruntled DEMOCRATS. They will KILL their own party by supporting him. People WANT a reduction of government.

Now, ask yourself why support a "fake" conservative who might win votes of independents and democrats because HE WILL SPEND...

or

Go for Dr Paul whose record clearly shows what he will do.


Signed,
A bible believing, born again Evangelical (non-denominational) Christian!

[ConsideringRonPaul]

I know the guns argument was to prove a point about drugs but it is kind of in a different class than drugs. I also want to avoid a debate but I will respond anyway. First of all, its people who kill people, not guns. In and of themselves guns do nothing. Knives could be used to kill as well. Gun bans in DC and Chicago are unconstitutional, end of story. And no government doesn't have the right to infringe on anyone's private property (including going into a house) without a proper search warrant. Drugs do have lingering effects, and if someone smokes weed on saturday and kills someone in a car accident during the week, that is threatening the lives of all on the road. It does affect others, and killing someone most certainly limits liberty. The religion argument gets off track for me. The Westboro "Baptists" have their right to speech and religion, but that is neither dangerous nor threatening, unless they somehow threatened the soldier's families (which I don; think they did). The "Baptists" can't go onto the private property of the church unless invited. And no, "hate speech" and any right to speech or assembly should never be prohibited. I mean I agree with you on all these points, I only vaguely see what you're getting at. I am against the federal government dictating individuals lives, per the 10th amendment and with the exception of the enumerated powers, but I believe the state and local governments have the ability to. For example, a local government can, imo, pass a law prohibiting nudity on the front lawn (or in public like in San Francisco). That is harmful to the psychological development of young children in the neighborhood, would be harmful to raising a family, and is a general disturbance. I believe in absolute truth and morality and therefore would oppose relativistic morals and letting people do whatever they want with themselves. I certainly believe in freedom and liberty and agree with much of the rest of what you said. However, the uneducated and the brainwashed will not always act in their best interest because they don't know any better. If the government believes in absolute truth as opposed to moral relativism like some libertarians, it can have policies in place that take people down the right path (away from drugs, into lasting marriages, etc.). The difference between a complete libertarian and myself is that I believe some things are right and some are wrong and the government should advocate truth. Indivuals will still do drugs but at least the government's disapproval will act as a hindrance for example.

[ConsideringRonPaul]

@mosquitobite: nice post, and I would never support romney (I'd rather vote paul third party actually haha). Right now I'm open to supporting anyone except Romney or Huntsman. Gingrich also has a lot of problems. My ranking right now probly goes: Bachmann, Paul, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich. And its good to know there are some truth-affirming Christians supporting RP. I still have some reservations about Paul, but I'm still waiting to see if people on this forum can convince me.

[mosquitobite]

@mosquitobite: nice post, and I would never support romney (I'd rather vote paul third party actually haha). Right now I'm open to supporting anyone except Romney or Huntsman. Gingrich also has a lot of problems. My ranking right now probly goes: Bachmann, Paul, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich. And its good to know there are some truth-affirming Christians supporting RP. I still have some reservations about Paul, but I'm still waiting to see if people on this forum can convince me.

Based on the polls it is actually down to Romney and Paul. Gringrich has been shown to be worse of a flip flopper paid lobbyist than Romney could ever dream of. Perry can't win once he opens his mouth. Bachmann is decent on domestic fiscal issues, but has too much of a pro-war stance to be popular right now.

The election is going to come down to the economy. And that's Paul's game.

[BrooklynZoo]

...it feels weird to think about uniting with the groups of people I listed as I am pretty much the antithesis of everything such people espouse (aka I'm probably the most conservative person I know on any issue).

Consider it liberating.


Atheism is where I lose you. You turn into a moral relativist. Doing the run for life and volunteering are great imo, but there's no real objective basis for your morality. Besides how can you really define "being a good person" person without God. All relative, no agreement there.
I think the non-aggression principle is pretty simple for people of "good moral character" to agree upon; likewise the Golden Rule didn't require Christianity. Your inability to comprehend how a society which acts morally without the constant threat of eternal torment masquerading as "god's love" can sustain itself is not a reason why it actually cannot. It's merely a measure of the immaturity and ignorance of the human race if such measures are required. The founders of this country were very careful not to compel their religious views on others. Many of the atheists and agnostics I have known know have grown up never knowing religion yet are often some of the most careful, logical and caring persons.


But the fact is there are a lot of RP supporters who think the Bush administration was behind the death of 3,000 Americans and the administration was filled with “glee”, as Paul puts it, after that event. That sickens me. While Bush had his policy problems like excessive spending, I would never go so far as to even hint at the idea that he was behind the attacks.
So don't believe it. What difference does it make what the truth is when the 9/11 Commission Report was an obvious whitewash? Tell me which senior officials responsible for the severe intelligence lapse that resulted in the possibility of a 9/11 have been fired or even officially reprimanded? Oh yeah, they weren't. Many of them were promoted. Of course, this is true of both Republican and Democratic administrations: Eric Holder went from being involved in the cover-up at Oklahoma City to becoming Obama's Attorney General and being responsible for more covert, anti-American operations like Fast and Furious. If you want people to be a little more settled about 9/11, a Paul administration would seek a new 9/11 investigation and you can be assured the results would not be tainted by corruption from the start.




Neo-con is leading in the poll, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that many progressives (as evidenced by the poll) support paul as well. The democratic party is the antithesis of my beliefs and if someone who supported those policies now supports the same guy I support, logically I feel something wrong is going on.
Logically, there is a contradiction. Maybe it will force you to confront your worldview. We all can have fundamental disagreements on certain issues and still be united in the principles of liberty. We support Ron Paul not because we necessarily agree with everything he says or with each other; we support Ron Paul because he represents liberty, unquestionable integrity and the American Way that we learned about in school and yet was lost somewhere in the translation to life in a cruel world. Dr. Paul warms the cool, jaded hearts of the disenchanted and disenfranchised regardless of who we are or who we were.


Finally with drugs: most of those who have been on highly addictive drugs will tell you the craving never truly goes away. By allowing things like heroin and cocaine to be freely sold, many will unwillingly be tricked into addictions that they will have no control of (for example 98% of heroin users are addicted after the first use). And marijuana is not a completely harmless drug as many make it up to be. It’s mentally addictive, has lingering effects and greatly impairs driving ability (think school bus drivers), is a huge gateway drug, raises the risk of heart attack greatly while high, has much more carcinogens than a cigarette when consumed in its most common method of consumption, etc etc. And yes alcohol and tobacco are both drugs and dangerous. But the solution is not to allow for more dangerous drugs to be legally bought and sold, addicting more people and enslaving them (as opposed to the argument that there is more liberty to let people use drugs). Bush and Rush both used drugs but both greatly regret that decision and advise others against doing them as opposed to libertarians who think anyone and everyone can buy/ sell any drug/substance. As for the govt having a pension on medical marijuana, that’s ridiculous imo. Besides, synthetic marinol exists and defeats the argument that cancer patients need smokeable pot.
Alright, here's the thing. At some point in your life you will have to make a choice: Either you own yourself and the fruits of your labor or the government does. The liberal/progressive perspective presumes the latter. The libertarian/conservative philosophy traditionally supports the former. Those who have not had to deal with the police state or had government force come down against them are far more likely to believe that government is, at its root, benevolent and at times helpful. Those who have been on the wrong side of a disagreement with the state and found themselves a victim of its "benevolence" recognize that the persons in government are no smarter than you are, in fact typically much less so and they have a monopoly on force.

I don't want to do cocaine or heroin. Heck, I hardly ever drink. However, I like knowing that if I ever wanted to do those things or others, that I could. Heroin used to come in a little bottle from Bayer and what do you think the Coca in Coca-Cola was? Abuse happens. Throwing someone in a concrete box because he did something harmful to himself is an immoral and unconstitutional act. I can't even get cold medicine now without having to sign a form for the Feds to review. Red-light cameras and roadside searches are becoming the norm now. When you allow government to take a little of your freedom, it will continue to creep and usurp incrementally until nothing is left.

I moved to Las Vegas mainly because it places me in an early caucus state where perhaps I can have an impact on the coming Presidential race. Living here supports the philosophy of liberty. You can drink at all hours of the day and all night, gamble all you want, smoke almost anywhere and pretty much anything is available here if you have the money. Yet somehow, society doesn't collapse here. Not even with three quarters of a million visitors each week from all over the world. Sure, there are stone drunks and bankruptcies and probably lung cancer as well. It's not a perfect place. But the world doesn't end from its existence. There are no red light cameras here and people routinely drive through the first second of a red light. You know what? People deal with it. It works better than statist New Jersey does. More freedom couldn't do any worse here, only better.

So the best argument against worrying about Federal drug legalization (which most states have plenty of laws against anyway) is that it's extremely immoral, Prohibition is extremely unconstitutional (alcohol required both a Constitutional amendment and the Volstead Act) and it doesn't work. The Drug War is a total and abject failure, much like the War on Poverty and the War on Terror and all other wars on abstractions. Call them what they really are: The War on You. When you understand all of these things, there will be no other choice but to support Ron Paul and those like him.

[affa]

Atheism is where I lose you. You turn into a moral relativist. Doing the run for life and volunteering are great imo, but there's no real objective basis for your morality. Besides how can you really define "being a good person" person without God. All relative, no agreement there. I don’t think I could live in a society of people like that where "goodness" is defined by the person.

Atheists disagree with each other just as much as people who believe in some god disagree with each other. Plenty of religious people have incredibly divergent views on what is moral and what is not (see any hot topic issue, like state executions or war).

Heck, I'm vegan, and literally wouldn't hurt a fly. Do I judge the elderly Christian lady across the street as she sprays pesticides everywhere? No. I notice, but I don't judge. So please don't try to argue your moral compass is somehow superior to mine simply because you read it out of a book.

PS - You already live in a society of people where 'goodness' is defined by the person. Each and every one of us does that, regardless of what religion we do or do not claim.



The democratic party is the antithesis of my beliefs and if someone who supported those policies now supports the same guy I support, logically I feel something wrong is going on.


That's not logic, that's irrationality. The left/right paradigm is an illusion fostered upon us by the establishment. You should be willing to listen to the ideas of a man (say, Ron Paul) and judge them on their own merit, not based on your pre-established judgement of others that agree with him. It's irrational to dismiss ideas out of hand simply because someone you disagree with on some issues likes an idea.



Finally with drugs: most of those who have been on highly addictive drugs will tell you the craving never truly goes away. By allowing things like heroin and cocaine to be freely sold, many will unwillingly be tricked into addictions that they will have no control of (for example 98% of heroin users are addicted after the first use).


Tricked? Nonsense. First off, are people tricked into trying drugs now? Let's see - they're taboo, so have that going for them. Often, their friends are telling them it's worth trying. Since it's black market, there is no label, and no warning label. If legalized, the drug would be labeled and have full warnings. Which is trickery? The truth? Or keeping it black market?

The truth will set you free. I am not 'tricked' into trying things. I decide to try them, or don't decide to.



And marijuana is not a completely harmless drug as many make it up to be. It’s mentally addictive, has lingering effects and greatly impairs driving ability (think school bus drivers), is a huge gateway drug, raises the risk of heart attack greatly while high, has much more carcinogens than a cigarette when consumed in its most common method of consumption, etc etc


First off, I disagree with some of your assertions, but let's start with the driving one. If true, then... well, heck, don't we already have reckless driving laws on the books? Yep. And DWI laws. And driving while drinking is far more dangerous than driving while high.

But more importantly, who cares if it's harmless or not? Liquor is harmful, but we all know how well Prohibition worked out. The gov't can not protect someone from themselves. Otherwise it will start banning drugs, liquor, guns, driving, and anything else that can harm themselves or others.

The only choice is liberty.



Bush and Rush both used drugs but both greatly regret that decision and advise others against doing them as opposed to libertarians who think anyone and everyone can buy/ sell any drug/substance.

Um. Your logic is failing. A libertarian that supports the right of others to do what they want can still advise against it. I don't advocate drug use. I don't do drugs. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't tell you not to.

And you know what? That doesn't just apply to 'black market' drugs. I'm also against the overwhelming number of 'legal' drugs that people take (and often force their children to take) for every ailment.



As for the govt having a pension on medical marijuana, that’s ridiculous imo. Besides, synthetic marinol exists and defeats the argument that cancer patients need smokeable pot.

I have no idea what you mean by 'pension'. But think about the absurdity of your final sentence: because we have a synthetic chemical that profits the drug companies, we don't need the natural plant that anyone can grow. I hope that sounds as absurd to you as it does to me.

[danbeaulieu]

bumpity

[danbeaulieu]

@ConsideringRonPaul

Don't judge a person by his supporters or make your decisions based on how everyone else will view you. Thats just dishonest to yourself, make your decisions based on morals and logic. That's how we arrive at Ron Paul, through principals, logic, truth and morality. What this thread PROVES is how diverse the support is for Ron Paul, there are people of all creeds, races and backgrounds supporting Ron Paul.

Have an open mind. When you arbitrarily disagree with with something you are part of the problem.

As for:
9/11 truth, the drug war, israel, gay marrage... his message is right. Just study with an open mind youll find the answers.

[tremendoustie]

I know the guns argument was to prove a point about drugs but it is kind of in a different class than drugs. I also want to avoid a debate but I will respond anyway. First of all, its people who kill people, not guns. In and of themselves guns do nothing. Knives could be used to kill as well. Gun bans in DC and Chicago are unconstitutional, end of story. And no government doesn't have the right to infringe on anyone's private property (including going into a house) without a proper search warrant.

We certainly agree there :)



Drugs do have lingering effects, and if someone smokes weed on saturday and kills someone in a car accident during the week, that is threatening the lives of all on the road.

Cannabis certainly does not have anything near that sort of "lingering effect". You've been fearmongered, my friend.



It does affect others, and killing someone most certainly limits liberty.

Of course it does, which is why we have laws against murder (and vehicular homicide/manslaughter). But, we don't outlaw alcohol, which has far, far more serious effects on a person's driving ability than cannabis does. When we did try to outlaw alcohol, in the 20s, we saw just what we have now with drugs: huge well financed mafias/gangs, increased violence, dangerous manufacturing practices and produces (e.g. moonshine), etc.

It's not only impractical, but it's wrong. What a person chooses to do with their own body in their own home is none of my business, legally -- and a government which tries to make it its business is setting itself against liberty, and taking on a role in society for which it was never intended.



The religion argument gets off track for me. The Westboro "Baptists" have their right to speech and religion, but that is neither dangerous nor threatening, unless they somehow threatened the soldier's families (which I don; think they did). The "Baptists" can't go onto the private property of the church unless invited. And no, "hate speech" and any right to speech or assembly should never be prohibited. I mean I agree with you on all these points, I only vaguely see what you're getting at.


I agree also.



I am against the federal government dictating individuals lives, per the 10th amendment and with the exception of the enumerated powers, but I believe the state and local governments have the ability to.

Constitutionally, yes. And that's all Ron's saying. If local jurisdictions wanted to enforce prohibitions, it's up to them.

Personally speaking, I'd oppose such prohibitions by my local government as well.



For example, a local government can, imo, pass a law prohibiting nudity on the front lawn (or in public like in San Francisco). That is harmful to the psychological development of young children in the neighborhood, would be harmful to raising a family, and is a general disturbance.

Yes, there's a legitimate argument to be made that public nudity counts as pollution. I really wouldn't have a problem with such a law.



I believe in absolute truth and morality and therefore would oppose relativistic morals and letting people do whatever they want with themselves.

I do too. And that's precisely why I think violence is only justified in certain specific circumstances -- namely, to stop someone who has, or is currently attempting to, harm another person or their property.

Laws are backed by violence. We must recognize this.

Do I think gluttony is wrong? Absolutely. Would it be wrong for me to go down to the local McDonalds and start threatening obese people with a gun, to harm them or lock them up if they don't put down what they're eating? Absolutely yes. What if I were to react in a violent way to gossip, or vanity, or pride, or unrighteous anger, or "white" lies?

There are many actions which are immoral, but to which a violent response would also be immoral. And, if it'd be wrong for me to do something like that as an individual, it's wrong for me to hire the government to do it.



I certainly believe in freedom and liberty and agree with much of the rest of what you said. However, the uneducated and the brainwashed will not always act in their best interest because they don't know any better. If the government believes in absolute truth as opposed to moral relativism like some libertarians, it can have policies in place that take people down the right path (away from drugs, into lasting marriages, etc.).


Once again, it's not that libertarians believe in moral relativism. In fact, for me at least, it's the exact opposite. I believe in the absolute moral principle that to initiate aggressive violence against someone who's not harming others, is morally wrong. Most people would agree with me on a personal level, but the difference is that I'd apply this same principle to the federal government.

I will do everything I can, short of violence, to try to help a friend stay off drugs - I oppose recreational drug use absolutely - but I don't think a violent response is a moral (or effective, for that matter) solution.

I'm also a Christian, by the way.



The difference between a complete libertarian and myself is that I believe some things are right and some are wrong and the government should advocate truth. Indivuals will still do drugs but at least the government's disapproval will act as a hindrance for example.

I likewise believe some things are right, and others are wrong -- I just believe the government should not be exempted from those rules.

Disapproval is great -- I disapprove of drug use also -- but as I say, violence is not appropriate.

[affa]

We certainly agree there :)
Cannabis certainly does not have anything near that sort of "lingering effect". You've been fearmongered, my friend.


Seconded! Seriously, I missed that gem. In my opinion, the effects of alcohol linger far longer than those of marijuana. And whereas liquor causes double/triple vision, massive lapses in value judgements, and reduces dexterity... marijuana is generally considered to increase focus. Granted, it can dull reaction time in some people, but so does alcohol. A very drunk guy is likely to get in a car or start a fight... someone high is either going to sit on a couch or get in a deep discussion, or maybe a snack. And the next day? The drunkard has a splitting headache and feels like crap. The guy who got stoned? Clear headed.

In my opinion, the reason marijuana is abhorred by the establishment is that, as a drug, it can open ones mind. It's not because it's dangerous to you or me, it's because it's dangerous to the establishment.

The idea that smoking weed on a weekend would cause an accident during the week is straight up ludicrous. It's as crazy as saying having sex on saturday might cause you to drink a glass of water on friday.

[BuddyRey]

This coming May, I'll celebrate my 5th anniversary as an official supporter of Ron Paul, my 4th year of being a principled libertarian, and my 3rd year of being a Voluntaryist. But before all of this, I was basically a well-meaning but poorly-informed leftist. I'd never actually read any economics books (imagine that!) and I didn't even have any specific methodology in my mind, other than a knee-jerk hatred of rich people, and a desire to redistribute their wealth, by force if necessary. I know....I'm disgusted looking back on all of this myself.

Still, I considered myself a nice guy who wanted to help people and never harm them. And as such, I saw the more *obvious* forms of immoral aggression and coercion for what they were. I was deeply and vehemently opposed to non-defensive wars, saw that America was becoming an intolerable police state under the Bush admin, and thought it a travesty that people were going to jail for soft drugs.

I do want to emphasize one thing about the "old me" that is important to remember for the context of my libertarian conversion, and that is that, while I had an abiding zeal for wealth redistribution and income equality, the war and civil liberties issues were of *paramount* importance in my mind. To my way of thinking, wars and repressive social policies were the very pillars propping up the Mixed Market/Corporatist economy that I falsely believed was a "laissez-faire free market." I've since noticed that a lot of the leftists I thought were my allies back then didn't place nearly as much importance on civil liberties and militarism as they pretended to, and really only took umbrage to these abuses when they were perpetrated by Republican legislators and a Republican president. These are invariably the leftists that remained and continue to remain mired in statist thinking, even in the face of the paradigm-shifting Ron Paul movement. But I digress...

My disgust with Bush compelled me to vote for Democrats, even though I was way more radical than they were and wasn't satisfied with their middle-of-the-road, soporific reluctance to strike the system at the root. In November of 2006, I cheered as Nancy Pelosi stood at the crest of the Blue Wave that ousted the Republican Majority that year, and thought to myself "finally...some accountability! Bush is really in trouble now!"

It didn't take me long to see that the only change we were going to get would be for the worse. Pelosi famously said that impeachment of Bush was "off the table", and the one puny effort to defund the war was a bill with no deadlines and no legislative teeth. This is where the entire edifice of my political thinking started to crumble away, and I fell under a dark, hopeless period where the news would only depress and enrage me.

I now realized that there was no substantive difference between the two major parties, and this realization compelled me to abandon my beloved daily ritual of watching CNN. Instead, I started looking at the blogosphere and alternative news outlets, like Infowars. One day, in early 2007, I saw a banner ad on the Infowars site advertizing the candidacy of someone named Ron Paul, who was deemed by the ad to be "Founding Father Material." I'd never heard of the guy, so I figured he was a minor candidate from a third party. I had no idea that I was looking at somebody who would permanently alter the course of my life, and fundamentally transform the political discourse of the United States, and the world at large.

That May, the groundwork was laid. I sat spellbound, watching the Republican debates as this mild-mannered, grandfatherly figure politely but insistently refused to apologize for voting against the Iraq War. I thought he was dead-wrong on economic issues, but the fact that he endorsed limited-government across the board won my respect and admiration right off the bat. "He may not be a Progressive, but at least he's a real conservative and not a neocon", I said. "This guy is interesting....I'm gonna keep my eye on him."

"Keeping my eye on him" of course entailed registering at Ron Paul Forums. Here is where I really feasted my mind on the cornucopia of ideas, principles, and philosophies on the anti-state side of the idea marketplace. To my eternal embarrassment, I said some pretty idiotic and deluded things in my first few months here. I especially remember arguing with SeanEdwards and CaptainShays about price controls, and "informing" them that "taxes are just the price we pay to live in a free society." I even told Noxagol that Austrian economics was a boring subject that I had no intention of researching. I mention these three by name only to single out three of the first people who genuinely tried to knock some sense into me. I'd like to publicly apologize to them now, late as this apology was in coming.

Curiosity did finally get the best of me, and that summer, I read my first ever economics book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. Contrary to my expectation that this would be a real chore to read, the book was concise, logically sound, and very engaging. I still wasn't sold, but I was now receptive....the walls were down, and this was when the changes really started.

I gradually waded further out into the depths of libertarian philosophy, flirting with low or single-tax movements like Georgism. Sometime in 2008 (I can't point to a specific date), when I first heard the idea of the Non-Aggression Principle, I saw finally that collectivism, inasmuch as it proposes a coercive means for organizing society, can be nothing but an affront to the values of non-violence I held so dear. I realized how hollow my "tolerant" political outlook had been, because though I didn't want to bomb anybody or lock anybody up for smoking a plant, I still advocated policies that would initiate force on people for no more devious an act than wanting to keep their own money. That was when the aphorism that "taxation is theft" finally made sense to me.

I was reading voraciously by this time. First came the works of the Classical Liberals (Hayek, Paine, Locke, Jefferson, etc.) and not long after that, the pure Anti-Statists (Thoreau, Rothbard, Spooner, etc.) I could talk about the micro-details of this period, but to be brief, my eventual abandonment of statism was pretty much complete by 2009. The rest, as they say, is history, and I owe it all to Ron Paul. Nobody before him had ever made me see freedom as an inextricable whole, with the integrity of "civil liberty" (which is really just self-ownership) wholly dependent on the integrity of economic freedom (property ownership), and vice-versa. I see the world through almost completely different eyes now, and Ron Paul opened that door. He's the greatest hero American politics has known in more than a century.

[ConsideringRonPaul]

There's a lot to respond to here. Don't have the time now but I will

[bunklocoempire]

WAS: "Christian", fearful, apathetic, 'lesser of two evils' voting, blind follower of foreign policy/national security.

IS: Christian (no" "s), Liberty supporter unto death -and surrounded by excellent company I might add.

EDIT: Just saw this-

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

ConsideringRonPaul, before I signed on board this Liberty thing I was perfectly content with, or apathetic to, the method of having groups of people using government (force) to try to 'change people's behavior'. I discovered that our form of federal government is not allowed to even try to do that. I also discovered that true behavioral change is accomplished when people's hearts are changed, and people's hearts don't get changed by pointing a gun at them. There are hundreds/thousands of threads on these forums which discuss this, I'd encourage you to have a look.

As a Christian I stand by what I wrote:
-and surrounded by excellent company I might add.

[KMA-NWO]

Congratulations on curing your 'tardism BitW. I was 'tarded once as well. Amazingly, being lied to about the pot issue was the cliff and Loose Change was the bottom. The landing sure was one hell of a wake-up call! Surprisingly, we both share the same high-school graduation year.

Funny how our wake-up patterns are similar, I guess the social engineers missed a leak...

[jason43]

I was a Neo-Con until I argued with a libertarian on a message board. I had no response for his talking points, I was never socially conservative anyway. Being a Vet (I got out in 2001), the foreign policy was the hardest thing for me to convert to. Talking to friends who were in Iraq and Afghanistan who said the whole thing was bullshit and losing my best friend from High School in Iraq in March of 2007 were the tipping point. When he died my first response was anger, then I realized that the guy that killed him was probably just a 27 year old guy just like him. At first I wanted revenge for my loss, but then I came to the realization that the whole war was pointless and causing a lot of innocent people of ours AND theirs to die for no reason. I went all in for Dr. Paul in the 2007 campaign and was crushed when we lost. I turned off the news for 3 years, literally.

Then I found Freedomain Radio and Molyneux changed my life. I consider myself to be a market anarchist. I support Paul because he brought me philosophically to where I am and he comes the closest to what I believe. Anything he does will be a step in the right direction. As far as I'm concerned he is the last chance the economy has. I hope America is ready to vote for him this time... but back to the original point, yes, I was once a flag waving neo-con. There is hope that some of them can convert.

[KMA-NWO]

I'm sorry to hear about your loss Jason. Welcome! We need everyone we can get!

[jason43]

T my 4th year of being a principled libertarian, and my 3rd year of being a Voluntaryist. But before all of this, I was basically a well-meaning but poorly-informed leftist. I'd never actually read any economics books (imagine that!) and I didn't even have any specific methodology in my mind, other than a knee-jerk hatred of rich people, and a desire to redistribute their wealth, by force if necessary.

Sounds a lot like me, except you started at the left. I didnt know the difference between crony capitalism and a true free market. I wasnt interested in economics at all until way after I got into Paul. I wish I would have been a lot more interested, I could have made a fortune buying gold. ha! All I knew was that I hated socialists and hippies and that anything they said, I was against. They hated America... Its amazing how people, even us personally, can take someone elses poorly educated narrative about politics and just run with it. Thats how they keep the cattle in the pasture without putting up a fence, just keep us fighting each other. Looking back is a big facepalm for my stupidity.

[rp713]

The thing is I've always had doubt even at an early age. I was "saved" and tried to live my life in a Christian manner. I never heard from or felt moved by a god. I researched symbolism and all sorts of things trying to see if there was some hidden messages or clues I was being left. I went to church, rededicated my life, studied the Bible, and tried my hardest to fix what I thought was wrong with me. Still, there was nothing. I felt nothing, wasn't moved, or felt like there was any presence in my life trying to help or guide me.

I guess the thing that kept me on for as long as it did was my parents, friends, family, and just being raised where everybody went to church. If everybody did it, it had to be true. I figured something was wrong with me because I can't be the only one doing all of this and getting nothing in return. Everybody I know couldn't be wrong could they?

I felt like my spiritual life was standing by a wall trying to get a response from somebody on the other side. It was like I was literally talking and praying to a wall. I finally let go because I spent years trying to find god and got nothing. There is no god in my mind and if he or she wants to change it they know where to find me.


this is exactly how i felt. my parents were catholic all of their lives, then found another religion and seemed really happy by it. then when they made the decision to be baptized along with my little sister. i said i didnt want to and i wasnt ready. but i didnt want to because i didnt feel it like they seemed to. then when they kept going on and on about it i caved and said yes because i didnt wanna be left out. i was only 9. but like you said. i never felt any presence or any feeling of being over-joyed. it just never felt real, and prayer was like no one was listening, it was just in my head. im glad i looked into alot deeper and came to my senses.

question, how did your family take it when you told them or they found out you didnt believe in it anymore?

[Uriah]

I voted progressive, closest to my anarchist views at the time.

Freedom was at the time, and still is the most important thing to me, personally, politically, and philosophically. I remember researching the candidates back in 2006/2007. I wanted the wars to end and civil liberties to return. I was looking at some candidate comparison site and looked over the democrats because they fit my view most closely at the time. I then looked into 3rd party candidates. After this, I liked Kucinich and Gravel the most. I thought to myself, 'to be fair and honestly research all the candidates, I should at least glance at the Republicans". I was surprised to see that a Republican candidate was actually against the wars and against the patriot act. My mind was blown.

Some time before this, I had watched the movie Zeitgeist. This film introduced me to the Federal Reserve system. The moment I had finished watching that film I knew, if true, that the FED was THE central issue. I researched some more, watched more films like Money Masters and others and wanted to do something about the FED but didn't know where to start. I let this information sit, uncomfortably.

Fast forward to the presidential candidate research. Now that I had found someone(Dr. Paul) that wanted peace and freedom, seemingly as much as I wanted peace and freedom, did he understand or even know about the FED? The answer, yes. I was sold.

It took hours and hours of youtubes, presidential debates, reading these forums, books and more to convince myself Dr. Paul was the real deal. I always try to be absolutely sure of something if I feel so... well, sure about it. Five years later, I am still sure Ron Paul is the real deal. How can anybody be against a person that offers peace, freedom, & prosperity, not only in word but in deed? And has a 30+ year record supporting it?

[GunnyFreedom]

I really appreciate stories like the OP that help me understand and thus build bridges to other voting blocks. I am guessing it was merely by some quirk of fate or some design of destiny that put me very young in the class of a civics professor who thought like we do now. Even before that at a spry 10 years old I was questioning Reagan's "war on drugs" being incompatible with American freedom. At 10 I had no concept of "drugs" except my asthma inhaler lol, but it seemed to me if we owned our own bodies then men with guns couldn't tell us what to put into it.

So I was always a liberty radical, and somewhere around 12-13-14 I encountered this Civics professor and became an original intent strict construction Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul was a shock to me because he's the first person I'd ever heard in politics who saw things the same way I did. I had pretty much given entirely up on politics and voted "gun rights" single issue at the ballot box. I had resigned myself to the conclusion that "America as myth" is over and felt the best hedge against totalitarianism was gun rights so I voted straight gun rights. I was in awe of Ron Paul because I never realized that someone who believed in the same "America as myth" as I did could get and stay elected....anything.

Having never given politics more than a passing thought, (generally in dispair) I encountered Ron Paul and figured with all I believed and how much I love America and hate our politics, if I don't go all-in with this Ron Paul guy then I'm a hypocrite. So I put my money where my mouth was, gave up pretty much my entire life, and went to canvass 3 states for the good Dr in 2008.

And ended up elected to the NC State House in 2010. Hating politics more than ever.

Conversion stories like the OP and others that talk about progressives waking up etc, are incredibly helpful to me for my own and Ron Paul's campaign. I'm empathetic, so I can see and sympathize with the neocon logic even as I reject it. But I've never been a neocon, so it's harder for me to reach them.

Thanks for the post, it's more helpful to us as we campaign for Ron Paul than you probably realize.

[GunnyFreedom]

This whole forum has just reinforced one of my main issues with supporting Paul: the fact that its social liberals, atheists, 9/11 "truthers", former democrats, drug users, etc. all support ron paul. I don't think I could put myself in a category with such people even though I do strongly love Ron's strict Constitutionalism and fiscal genius. I was the one person so far who clicked option four on the poll, and, as of now, it's posts like these that are keeping me on the "dark side."

I am a Pauler because I am a strict Constitutionalist, and I know that if we do not restore the Constitutional order, America will continue to fling herself apart oscillating violently left right left right until we are finished, a smoking pile of rubble as a nation. I am worried that there is not much time left, and that we don't really have time for "slow" anymore.

As to the fringes of every movement, you will find that any radical change brings out lots of very vocal, radical people. It's just the math of it, given the nature of free expression in America. That's just the bitter pill we have to swallow in order to affect radical change in America, such as electing Ron Paul and restoring the Constitutional order.

[Jack Bauer]

I feel like a conservative when I am among libertarians and like a libertarian when I am among conservatives.

Explain that!

[JasonC]

Like RP says, once you know the truth you have an obligation to do something about it.......

[GunnyFreedom]

Like RP says, once you know the truth you have an obligation to do something about it.......

Hey, that's made up of that "morality" stuff that the pseudochristians claim they have and we don't... hmm...

[GunnyFreedom]

I feel like a conservative when I am among libertarians and like a libertarian when I am among conservatives.

Explain that!

Yes. 42.

Or rather 9/17/1787

depending on your calculus.

[BuddyRey]

I feel like a conservative when I am among libertarians and like a libertarian when I am among conservatives.

Explain that!

Maybe you're still somewhere between the two. There's nothing wrong with that. I felt the same way during my first months here, except that I was stuck in a murky middle-ground between libertarianism and liberalism.

[BuddyRey]

Morning bump!

[Sola_Fide]

I feel like a conservative when I am among libertarians and like a libertarian when I am among conservatives.

Explain that!

Oh yeah. I have that feeling too.

[libertarian4321]

Going into 2009 I was a Neo-Con Christian struggling with myself and my religion. Coming out of 2009 I was an Atheist Libertarian Ron Paul supporter.


When I was in HS back in 1980, I was a more "mainstream" Republican- a big supporter of Reagan, militarism, and even some aspects of the "moral majority."

But over time I, too, have evolved into a libertarian.

I also became an atheist. This was one of the few areas where I did not agree with Dr. Paul.

At least until early this year, when I was touched by the noodly appendage of God.

Come into the light, my son, become a Pastafarian and join me in praising the one true God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/th_havetouched.jpg

[Hospitaller]

I know the guns argument was to prove a point about drugs but it is kind of in a different class than drugs. I also want to avoid a debate but I will respond anyway. First of all, its people who kill people, not guns. In and of themselves guns do nothing. Knives could be used to kill as well. Gun bans in DC and Chicago are unconstitutional, end of story.

I beleive that if criminals have access to guns when good citizens do not have unrestricted access to guns, the criminals will be more inclined to use those guns. If there is a very high possibility that everyone you walk past on the street has a weapon i gaurantee that criminal minded people would be disuaded (sp?) to use thier weapon.

The wild west where everyone was armed was definately not as wild as people are fooled into beleiving

[Revolution9]

When I was in HS back in 1980, I was a more "mainstream" Republican- a big supporter of Reagan, militarism, and even some aspects of the "moral majority."

But over time I, too, have evolved into a libertarian.

I also became an atheist. This was one of the few areas where I did not agree with Dr. Paul.

At least until early this year, when I was touched by the noodly appendage of God.

Come into the light, my son, become a Pastafarian and join me in praising the one true God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/th_havetouched.jpg

Looks like you now have the equivalent of a succubi on your neck now. Enjoy your pastafarianism. I am sure your newfound pal will be enjoying his meal as well.

Rev9

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

question, how did your family take it when you told them or they found out you didnt believe in it anymore?

I haven't told them. I know I should but it's easier right now if I didn't. I started to hint at it one time with my mom and she started to flip so I stopped it right then and there and didn't go any further.

I know some people think I'm probably being a coward but my parents have enough to worry about and I really don't want my faith added to the top of that list. I'd rather they live in a blissful ignorance than constantly worrying about and feeling depressed over my religious beliefs.

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Ok I'm going to make my responses as terse as possible as there is much to respond to and say.

If I don't respond to something, I either don't see an argument, agree with the poster, or don't even feel an answer merits a response.


As for the "glee" comment, there are actually some comments and reports out there that some in the Bush Administration were eager about going into Iraq very early and right around the time after 9/11.

Even if this were true (I'd need some sources), the way Dr. Paul phrased that was not smart. And besides, if they believed the threat originated in Iraq, then it would make sense they would want to quickly eliminate the threat and provide safety for Americans.


Isn't that some good credit to give to Ron Paul? As I said above, here's a candidate that you're interested in and he's bringing in people you're opposed to.

I feel progressives only support Paul because they dislike the US military and want more liberal drug laws. I'm sorry but it doesn't rev me up to think about this.


Based on the polls it is actually down to Romney and Paul. Gringrich has been shown to be worse of a flip flopper paid lobbyist than Romney could ever dream of. Perry can't win once he opens his mouth. Bachmann is decent on domestic fiscal issues, but has too much of a pro-war stance to be popular right now.

The election is going to come down to the economy. And that's Paul's game.

If you're premise that its down to only Paul and Romney is correct, then I will root for Paul for sure.


I think the non-aggression principle is pretty simple for people of "good moral character" to agree upon; likewise the Golden Rule didn't require Christianity. Your inability to comprehend how a society which acts morally without the constant threat of eternal torment masquerading as "god's love" can sustain itself is not a reason why it actually cannot. It's merely a measure of the immaturity and ignorance of the human race if such measures are required. The founders of this country were very careful not to compel their religious views on others. Many of the atheists and agnostics I have known know have grown up never knowing religion yet are often some of the most careful, logical and caring persons.

I like the ad hominen on my comprehension abilities and condescending quotation marks. Besides that, defining morality without religion is a fruitless endeavor. One can't really be trusted as they might change their views on something's morality from one day to the next, especially when they have no objective source of good from which to draw their ideas. Besides, having a government that promotes Christian moral values is not exactly "constant threat of eternal torment masquerading as "god's love"". And to address your quote: "It's merely a measure of the immaturity and ignorance of the human race if such measures are required.", I'll quote James Madison, Federalist Papers 51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Humans are immature and imperfect and do need government; and one that promotes truth is not one I'm opposed to.


So don't believe it. What difference does it make what the truth is when the 9/11 Commission Report was an obvious whitewash? Tell me which senior officials responsible for the severe intelligence lapse that resulted in the possibility of a 9/11 have been fired or even officially reprimanded? Oh yeah, they weren't. Many of them were promoted. Of course, this is true of both Republican and Democratic administrations: Eric Holder went from being involved in the cover-up at Oklahoma City to becoming Obama's Attorney General and being responsible for more covert, anti-American operations like Fast and Furious. If you want people to be a little more settled about 9/11, a Paul administration would seek a new 9/11 investigation and you can be assured the results would not be tainted by corruption from the start.


Sure I'd be down for another investigation, don't really think it would uncover that much if anything new. But I doubt all the truthers would be satisfied.


Logically, there is a contradiction. Maybe it will force you to confront your worldview. We all can have fundamental disagreements on certain issues and still be united in the principles of liberty. We support Ron Paul not because we necessarily agree with everything he says or with each other; we support Ron Paul because he represents liberty, unquestionable integrity and the American Way that we learned about in school and yet was lost somewhere in the translation to life in a cruel world. Dr. Paul warms the cool, jaded hearts of the disenchanted and disenfranchised regardless of who we are or who we were.


Most of the progressives that support what you might call "liberty" are really supporting anarchy. I'm obviously not a libertarian but that's mainly because of the group's social liberalism. A government which tries to restrain deadly drug usage, like heroin will stop more people from using it for example. I'll take a sacrifice in my "liberty" to allow the government (Remember I'm talking state government here) to restrict the ability of kids in my neighborhood to get drugs. I know some obviously still will, but much less will be able to or eager to do so when there are strict government penalties. Also I do agree with you that Paul has the most integrity and consistency of any candidate. And don't think I'm against liberty, because I'm not. When I read Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia COnvention, it sends shivers down my spine. Yet, I just don't castrate the word in a way that attempts to legitimize actions that are repugnant to any moral person's sensibilities.


Alright, here's the thing. At some point in your life you will have to make a choice: Either you own yourself and the fruits of your labor or the government does. The liberal/progressive perspective presumes the latter. The libertarian/conservative philosophy traditionally supports the former. Those who have not had to deal with the police state or had government force come down against them are far more likely to believe that government is, at its root, benevolent and at times helpful. Those who have been on the wrong side of a disagreement with the state and found themselves a victim of its "benevolence" recognize that the persons in government are no smarter than you are, in fact typically much less so and they have a monopoly on force.

I don't want to do cocaine or heroin. Heck, I hardly ever drink. However, I like knowing that if I ever wanted to do those things or others, that I could. Heroin used to come in a little bottle from Bayer and what do you think the Coca in Coca-Cola was? Abuse happens. Throwing someone in a concrete box because he did something harmful to himself is an immoral and unconstitutional act. I can't even get cold medicine now without having to sign a form for the Feds to review. Red-light cameras and roadside searches are becoming the norm now. When you allow government to take a little of your freedom, it will continue to creep and usurp incrementally until nothing is left.

I moved to Las Vegas mainly because it places me in an early caucus state where perhaps I can have an impact on the coming Presidential race. Living here supports the philosophy of liberty. You can drink at all hours of the day and all night, gamble all you want, smoke almost anywhere and pretty much anything is available here if you have the money. Yet somehow, society doesn't collapse here. Not even with three quarters of a million visitors each week from all over the world. Sure, there are stone drunks and bankruptcies and probably lung cancer as well. It's not a perfect place. But the world doesn't end from its existence. There are no red light cameras here and people routinely drive through the first second of a red light. You know what? People deal with it. It works better than statist New Jersey does. More freedom couldn't do any worse here, only better.

So the best argument against worrying about Federal drug legalization (which most states have plenty of laws against anyway) is that it's extremely immoral, Prohibition is extremely unconstitutional (alcohol required both a Constitutional amendment and the Volstead Act) and it doesn't work. The Drug War is a total and abject failure, much like the War on Poverty and the War on Terror and all other wars on abstractions. Call them what they really are: The War on You. When you understand all of these things, there will be no other choice but to support Ron Paul and those like him.

Throwing someone in jail is supposed to discourage an action. There are no positives that can come from deadly drug use, except creating citizens addicted to it and draining our communities of their vitality, especially poor communities. I would not take comfort in knowing the STATE government didn't want people essentially killing themselves. Once again I agree that the Feds shouldn't be involved, especially with that cold medicine. Society would not end if there were more restrictions on harmful actions in place, however, there are now many more of the negative consequences you mentioned because of a lack of them. Think of how few people would want to raise a family in Las Vegas. It's not the ideal society in my book or in many others. As for red light cameras, there's probably more accidents because of them.


So the best argument against worrying about Federal drug legalization (which most states have plenty of laws against anyway) is that it's extremely immoral, Prohibition is extremely unconstitutional (alcohol required both a Constitutional amendment and the Volstead Act) and it doesn't work. The Drug War is a total and abject failure, much like the War on Poverty and the War on Terror and all other wars on abstractions. Call them what they really are: The War on You. When you understand all of these things, there will be no other choice but to support Ron Paul and those like him.

First I want to thank you for the post, it was very informative. Don't take any of my attacks as personal. Secondly, I am very close to supporting Ron Paul, I just don't think I could ever be a libertarian. I'd agree with you that the war on poverty has been a complete failure, but I'll disagree on the other two. The war on drugs has kept millions off deadly substances and there hasn't been another major terror attack since the war on terror began (yea there have been some minor ones but unless you have a full-out police state, crime can't be totally stopped).


Atheists disagree with each other just as much as people who believe in some god disagree with each other. Plenty of religious people have incredibly divergent views on what is moral and what is not (see any hot topic issue, like state executions or war).

Heck, I'm vegan, and literally wouldn't hurt a fly. Do I judge the elderly Christian lady across the street as she sprays pesticides everywhere? No. I notice, but I don't judge. So please don't try to argue your moral compass is somehow superior to mine simply because you read it out of a book.

PS - You already live in a society of people where 'goodness' is defined by the person. Each and every one of us does that, regardless of what religion we do or do not claim.

Goodness is defined by me and millions of other Christians as what God defines goodness as; and what a Christian worldview and philosophy define as good for issues God doesn't directly deal with. That is where Christian disagreement comes from (and its very minimal amongst conservative believers, liberal Christains don't even trust the Bible so I'm leaving them out). The disagreements are over application not morality or belief. Your post reeks of moral relativism; of course atheists disagree with one another, there is no objective source for their morality. It's literally all for the person with you guys. There's technically no way you can tell me murder is wrong unless you impose your morality of respecting other people's liberty on me (just an extreme example here, no hard feelings).


That's not logic, that's irrationality. The left/right paradigm is an illusion fostered upon us by the establishment. You should be willing to listen to the ideas of a man (say, Ron Paul) and judge them on their own merit, not based on your pre-established judgement of others that agree with him. It's irrational to dismiss ideas out of hand simply because someone you disagree with on some issues likes an idea.

Since you have such a hard time understanding what I'm saying, I'll give you an analogy. Say a new restaurant opens down the street from you. There are already a lot of Italian restaurants that you kinda like on the street but are getting sick of. There's also a lot of Greek restaurants that you hate across the street. Every thing served at the Greek restaurant is something you are opposed to. So when you go to check out the new place, you see a lot of the Italians, but also a lot of the greeks. The Italians you feel comfortable eating with but the Greeks you cannot stand. They even have started to buy similar food as you but they're rationale for changing is totally repugnant. They make you sick. Yet they claim, you should be happy this restaurant attracts us. Its good business. But for you, they are obnoxious, smelly, and insane. In a nutshell that's how I feel, with, if you hadn't figured it out, Italians as Republicans, Greeks as Democrats, and the new restaurant as Ron Paul.


Tricked? Nonsense. First off, are people tricked into trying drugs now? Let's see - they're taboo, so have that going for them. Often, their friends are telling them it's worth trying. Since it's black market, there is no label, and no warning label. If legalized, the drug would be labeled and have full warnings. Which is trickery? The truth? Or keeping it black market?

The truth will set you free. I am not 'tricked' into trying things. I decide to try them, or don't decide to.

Legalizing drugs would not cut down consumption, it would most likely skyrocket. Labels don't stop the many millions of people from smoking or drinking (And don;t say, well they're legal so all other drugs should be too, that would only make the situation worse, why would someone want that.) And people will be tricked by friends regardless of its legality. People addicted to drugs want otther people addicted for comfort, they don;t want to be alone in their troubles. Legalizing drugs would make getting the drugs easier, and plus itd be very easy to take them out of their store containers and still trick friends.


First off, I disagree with some of your assertions, but let's start with the driving one. If true, then... well, heck, don't we already have reckless driving laws on the books? Yep. And DWI laws. And driving while drinking is far more dangerous than driving while high.

But more importantly, who cares if it's harmless or not? Liquor is harmful, but we all know how well Prohibition worked out. The gov't can not protect someone from themselves. Otherwise it will start banning drugs, liquor, guns, driving, and anything else that can harm themselves or others.

The only choice is liberty.

Saying its more dangerous to drive drunk than high is just an opinion; in any regard both are dangerous. Marijuana's lingering effects can often last for days if not weeks though which makes it more dangerous. The government can promote what is right (namely not using drugs) but no technically it can;t protect someone from themselves. And also owning a gun in and of itself is not dangerous. A gun can mistakenly be used for bad purposes but it is mostly for self-defense, hunting, etc. Drugs on the other hand have one purpose: for people to get high. And yes alcohol is dangerous, but why make the problem worse and legalize more dangerous things.


Um. Your logic is failing. A libertarian that supports the right of others to do what they want can still advise against it. I don't advocate drug use. I don't do drugs. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't tell you not to.

And you know what? That doesn't just apply to 'black market' drugs. I'm also against the overwhelming number of 'legal' drugs that people take (and often force their children to take) for every ailment.

Umm my logic isn't failing, the Bush Rush comment was in reply to another person's comment. I wasn't just throwing them out there. My point was that people who have abused substances in the past have the experience with how bad/deadly they are. Yes libertarians don't believe intelling anyone what to do. I understand that. Someone that makes a mistake and becomes addicted to heroin though would probably be wishing you had.


I have no idea what you mean by 'pension'. But think about the absurdity of your final sentence: because we have a synthetic chemical that profits the drug companies, we don't need the natural plant that anyone can grow. I hope that sounds as absurd to you as it does to me.

My point was that cancer patients don;t need to smoke smoke weed and get high when there is already something out there that will help alleviate their pain without allowing kids to come in complain of ailment X and get smokeable marijuana.

Thanks for the posting btw, agree with you on some points, can't on others. I will continue this response to the other posters in a bit.

Last thing: I'm not here to get in an argument about the war on drugs, I have my opinions and they're not changing unless someone somehow provides me with very convincing evidence; I was more responding to what others have said. Going back to my original post, my main point is that I am not in my element with socially liberal libertarians and I was a bit concerned that so many were ardent supporters of a man I am considering supporting for president. I know "liberty unites people" but still I was and still am unsettled.

[libertarian4321]

Enjoy your pastafarianism. I am sure your newfound pal will be enjoying his meal as well.

Rev9

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you implying that my God, the one true God, the FSM, is nothing but an imaginary friend?

Blaspheme!

[affa]

wasn't done yet, sorry.

[affa]

I feel progressives only support Paul because they dislike the US military and want more liberal drug laws. I'm sorry but it doesn't rev me up to think about this.


With all due respect, I don't think you are the best judge of why progressives support Ron Paul. That's as condescending a view as saying, for example, that the reason someone supports Santorum is because they're homophobic. Except here, you're slamming an entire segment of Ron Paul's actual supporters, dismissing them out of hand because of your own preconceptions about them. Which are incorrect, by the way. Progressives that have switched to Ron Paul have done it for the same reason Neocons, etc, have switched to Ron Paul -- they woke up to the smell of liberty. Period. Anti-war might have gotten them to look at him, or his stance on the drug war, or the Patriot Act, or whatever... but once you start watching Ron Paul speak, it's ridiculous to be as dismissive as you are being.



Besides that, defining morality without religion is a fruitless endeavor. One can't really be trusted as they might change their views on something's morality from one day to the next, especially when they have no objective source of good from which to draw their ideas.


Absurd. I am an atheist. I believe murder is wrong. I believe rape is wrong. I believe factory farming is wrong. Slavery. Taxation. And on and on.
I don't need your god to make these calculations on my own. I just need my head. And ultimately, so did you, since at some point you decided to believe in your god... and thus decided to take on the moral stances you have.
This idea that atheists have no moral rock is downright absurd, and once again shows you have absolutely no understanding of those you seek to slander with your condescension. Meanwhile, you act as if all Christians share the same faith, and same morality, when that is demonstrably false.




Most of the progressives that support what you might call "liberty" are really supporting anarchy.


It's really clear to me you have no understanding of progressives, liberty, or anarchism.



I'm obviously not a libertarian but that's mainly because of the group's social liberalism. A government which tries to restrain deadly drug usage, like heroin will stop more people from using it for example. I'll take a sacrifice in my "liberty" to allow the government (Remember I'm talking state government here) to restrict the ability of kids in my neighborhood to get drugs. I know some obviously still will, but much less will be able to or eager to do so when there are strict government penalties.


You confuse two issues. Just because I don't criminalize weed, or tobacco, or liquor doesn't mean I can't warn against it. And this idea that people will be 'less eager' due to gov't penalties is really just conjecture, and silly conjecture at that. Drugs are easy to get. Simple. For someone underage, it's easier to get drugs than liquor in most cases. And that's not even getting into this idea that you think the government needs to protect people from themselves.



Also I do agree with you that Paul has the most integrity and consistency of any candidate. And don't think I'm against liberty, because I'm not.


Yes, you are, in many cases. Don't worry, give it time to sink in. As the message of liberty spreads through your system, it will cure you of your authoritarian penchants.



When I read Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia COnvention, it sends shivers down my spine. Yet, I just don't castrate the word in a way that attempts to legitimize actions that are repugnant to any moral person's sensibilities.


Stop elevating yourself. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't not make them immoral. 'Any moral person's sensibilities' is the most offensive term you've used yet - as if you somehow have a monopoly on what is wrong and right and you, alone, judge the world... and anyone who disagrees with you is neither moral nor sensible.

You seek to impose your moral views on others through force. That is not liberty, no matter how you cut it.



Throwing someone in jail is supposed to discourage an action.


'supposed to' being the key phrase there.



There are no positives that can come from deadly drug use, except creating citizens addicted to it and draining our communities of their vitality, especially poor communities.


Yet criminalizing drugs does not stop drug use, and in fact, creates a black market. It also prevents any level of, say, 'purity checks' for drugs, so that those addicted can make sure they're not getting strychnine with their drug. It also prevents people who want help from going for help, since they fear arrest.

Meanwhile, all the legal over-the-counter 'deadly drugs' go one being sold, to the profit of big pharm.



I would not take comfort in knowing the STATE government didn't want people essentially killing themselves.


Just because liquor is legal does not mean the state condones drinking. It just means they don't ban it outright.



Society would not end if there were more restrictions on harmful actions in place, however, there are now many more of the negative consequences you mentioned because of a lack of them.

You do not love liberty yet - or at least, you do not fully understand it. This statement of yours is the most anti-liberty sentiment I've heard in quite some time. Who defines harmful? You? Who defines moral? You? So you are a defender of liberty, as long as that liberty takes the form of things you agree with.



Think of how few people would want to raise a family in Las Vegas.


What the?



It's not the ideal society in my book or in many others.


I'd much rather live in Vegas than the society it sounds like you'd create. At least Vegas would let me be me.



First I want to thank you for the post, it was very informative. Don't take any of my attacks as personal. Secondly, I am very close to supporting Ron Paul, I just don't think I could ever be a libertarian. I'd agree with you that the war on poverty has been a complete failure, but I'll disagree on the other two. The war on drugs has kept millions off deadly substances and there hasn't been another major terror attack since the war on terror began (yea there have been some minor ones but unless you have a full-out police state, crime can't be totally stopped).


Show me ANY substantial proof that the war on drugs has kept 'millions' off of drugs. If anything, we have a drug addicted society today. Over the counter, included. We have a massive problem with gangs and cartels that profit off drugs (not dissimilar from the rise of organized crime during Prohibition).

Our society uses drugs far more now, than before the war on drugs began. Just because you want to believe the propaganda, does not make it true.



Goodness is defined by me and millions of other Christians as what God defines goodness as; and what a Christian worldview and philosophy define as good for issues God doesn't directly deal with.


So I can't define 'good' because I'm not Christian? You guys have a monopoly on that? 'Good' for you.



It's literally all for the person with you guys. There's technically no way you can tell me murder is wrong unless you impose your morality of respecting other people's liberty on me (just an extreme example here, no hard feelings).


What? You impose your views on me, but then say if i say 'murder is wrong' i'm imposing my views on you? Seriously? That's all you've got?



Since you have such a hard time understanding what I'm saying, I'll give you an analogy. Say a new restaurant opens down the street from you. There are already a lot of Italian restaurants that you kinda like on the street but are getting sick of. There's also a lot of Greek restaurants that you hate across the street. Every thing served at the Greek restaurant is something you are opposed to. So when you go to check out the new place, you see a lot of the Italians, but also a lot of the greeks. The Italians you feel comfortable eating with but the Greeks you cannot stand. They even have started to buy similar food as you but they're rationale for changing is totally repugnant. They make you sick. Yet they claim, you should be happy this restaurant attracts us. Its good business. But for you, they are obnoxious, smelly, and insane. In a nutshell that's how I feel, with, if you hadn't figured it out, Italians as Republicans, Greeks as Democrats, and the new restaurant as Ron Paul.


I'm sorry, I couldn't get through that analogy. Far too racist in origin for my taste buds. Any argument which requires you to say I think an entire ethnicity of people is 'obnoxious, smelly, and insane' is a failed argument.



Legalizing drugs would not cut down consumption, it would most likely skyrocket. Labels don't stop the many millions of people from smoking or drinking (And don;t say, well they're legal so all other drugs should be too, that would only make the situation worse, why would someone want that.) And people will be tricked by friends regardless of its legality. People addicted to drugs want otther people addicted for comfort, they don;t want to be alone in their troubles. Legalizing drugs would make getting the drugs easier, and plus itd be very easy to take them out of their store containers and still trick friends.


This is absurd. Anyone 'tricked' by someone changing bottles can still be tricked today. And drugs being illegal doesn't stop anyone from doing them. What's your point again?



Saying its more dangerous to drive drunk than high is just an opinion; in any regard both are dangerous.


Says someone who clearly has absolutely no understanding of what it means to be high, given the fact you think it can cause a car accident days later.



Marijuana's lingering effects can often last for days if not weeks though which makes it more dangerous.


You have no idea what you're talking about.



The government can promote what is right (namely not using drugs) but no technically it can;t protect someone from themselves. And also owning a gun in and of itself is not dangerous. A gun can mistakenly be used for bad purposes but it is mostly for self-defense, hunting, etc. Drugs on the other hand have one purpose: for people to get high. And yes alcohol is dangerous, but why make the problem worse and legalize more dangerous things.


You assume 'getting high' on marijuana is some terrible thing. This is the same argument used during Prohibition - that alcohol caused terrible ills, caused men to cheat, caused men to beat their wives, caused men to gamble. First off, marijuana does NONE of those things, though, it could be argued liquor actually does. Yet even for liquor, we learned the hard way (well, it was obvious for anyone liberty minded) that prohibition does not work.



My point was that people who have abused substances in the past have the experience with how bad/deadly they are.

So? Plenty of ex-drug users support decriminalization, too.



My point was that cancer patients don;t need to smoke smoke weed and get high when there is already something out there that will help alleviate their pain without allowing kids to come in complain of ailment X and get smokeable marijuana.


You really ought to smoke a joint and get back to us - I think you have this completely skewed view of what being 'high' is like. It's nowhere near as serious as even being drunk... it's more like if you just mellowed out a bit, and were relaxed. The effects of liquor on one's being is far more substantial, far more negative, and hurts society far more.



Last thing: I'm not here to get in an argument about the war on drugs, I have my opinions and they're not changing unless someone somehow provides me with very convincing evidence; I was more responding to what others have said. Going back to my original post, my main point is that I am not in my element with socially liberal libertarians and I was a bit concerned that so many were ardent supporters of a man I am considering supporting for president. I know "liberty unites people" but still I was and still am unsettled.

No one can provide you with 'convincing evidence' because you have this view of marijuana in your head that is completely, totally separate from the reality of actually getting high. It's like the tee-totallers who put out pamplets that said one drink of liquor could cause you to beat your wife, or burst into flames (yes, that really was the propaganda).

I know it's a hard road to liberty, but at some point you will hopefully realize that if you need to tell me what I can or can not do, you are not a supporter of liberty, but rather, authoritarianism. If you think the State needs to tell me how to behave, you believe in tyranny. And if you think that the state should do this with the will of [insert diety here] in mind, you believe in religious tyranny. Freedom, and liberty, require trust in your fellow man (and woman) whether you disagree with them or not.

[ryanmkeisling]

With all due respect, I don't think you are the best judge of why progressives support Ron Paul. That's as condescending a view as saying, for example, that the reason someone supports Santorum is because they're homophobic. Except here, you're slamming an entire segment of Ron Paul's actual supporters, dismissing them out of hand because of your own preconceptions about them. Which are incorrect, by the way. Progressives that have switched to Ron Paul have done it for the same reason Neocons, etc, have switched to Ron Paul -- they woke up to the smell of liberty. Period. Anti-war might have gotten them to look at him, or his stance on the drug war, or the Patriot Act, or whatever... but once you start watching Ron Paul speak, it's ridiculous to be as dismissive as you are being.



Absurd. I am an atheist. I believe murder is wrong. I believe rape is wrong. I believe factory farming is wrong. Slavery. Taxation. And on and on.
I don't need your god to make these calculations on my own. I just need my head. And ultimately, so did you, since at some point you decided to believe in your god... and thus decided to take on the moral stances you have.
This idea that atheists have no moral rock is downright absurd, and once again shows you have absolutely no understanding of those you seek to slander with your condescension. Meanwhile, you act as if all Christians share the same faith, and same morality, when that is demonstrably false.




It's really clear to me you have no understanding of progressives, liberty, or anarchism.



You confuse two issues. Just because I don't criminalize weed, or tobacco, or liquor doesn't mean I can't warn against it. And this idea that people will be 'less eager' due to gov't penalties is really just conjecture, and silly conjecture at that. Drugs are easy to get. Simple. For someone underage, it's easier to get drugs than liquor in most cases. And that's not even getting into this idea that you think the government needs to protect people from themselves.



Yes, you are, in many cases. Don't worry, give it time to sink in. As the message of liberty spreads through your system, it will cure you of your authoritarian penchants.



Stop elevating yourself. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't not make them immoral. 'Any moral person's sensibilities' is the most offensive term you've used yet - as if you somehow have a monopoly on what is wrong and right and you, alone, judge the world... and anyone who disagrees with you is neither moral nor sensible.

You seek to impose your moral views on others through force. That is not liberty, no matter how you cut it.



'supposed to' being the key phrase there.



Yet criminalizing drugs does not stop drug use, and in fact, creates a black market. It also prevents any level of, say, 'purity checks' for drugs, so that those addicted can make sure they're not getting strychnine with their drug. It also prevents people who want help from going for help, since they fear arrest.

Meanwhile, all the legal over-the-counter 'deadly drugs' go one being sold, to the profit of big pharm.



Just because liquor is legal does not mean the state condones drinking. It just means they don't ban it outright.



You do not love liberty yet - or at least, you do not fully understand it. This statement of yours is the most anti-liberty sentiment I've heard in quite some time. Who defines harmful? You? Who defines moral? You? So you are a defender of liberty, as long as that liberty takes the form of things you agree with.



What the?



I'd much rather live in Vegas than the society it sounds like you'd create. At least Vegas would let me be me.



Show me ANY substantial proof that the war on drugs has kept 'millions' off of drugs. If anything, we have a drug addicted society today. Over the counter, included. We have a massive problem with gangs and cartels that profit off drugs (not dissimilar from the rise of organized crime during Prohibition).

Our society uses drugs far more now, than before the war on drugs began. Just because you want to believe the propaganda, does not make it true.



So I can't define 'good' because I'm not Christian? You guys have a monopoly on that? 'Good' for you.



What? You impose your views on me, but then say if i say 'murder is wrong' i'm imposing my views on you? Seriously? That's all you've got?



I'm sorry, I couldn't get through that analogy. Far too racist in origin for my taste buds. Any argument which requires you to say I think an entire ethnicity of people is 'obnoxious, smelly, and insane' is a failed argument.



This is absurd. Anyone 'tricked' by someone changing bottles can still be tricked today. And drugs being illegal doesn't stop anyone from doing them. What's your point again?



Says someone who clearly has absolutely no understanding of what it means to be high, given the fact you think it can cause a car accident days later.



You have no idea what you're talking about.



You assume 'getting high' on marijuana is some terrible thing. This is the same argument used during Prohibition - that alcohol caused terrible ills, caused men to cheat, caused men to beat their wives, caused men to gamble. First off, marijuana does NONE of those things, though, it could be argued liquor actually does. Yet even for liquor, we learned the hard way (well, it was obvious for anyone liberty minded) that prohibition does not work.



So? Plenty of ex-drug users support decriminalization, too.



You really ought to smoke a joint and get back to us - I think you have this completely skewed view of what being 'high' is like. It's nowhere near as serious as even being drunk... it's more like if you just mellowed out a bit, and were relaxed. The effects of liquor on one's being is far more substantial, far more negative, and hurts society far more.



No one can provide you with 'convincing evidence' because you have this view of marijuana in your head that is completely, totally separate from the reality of actually getting high. It's like the tee-totallers who put out pamplets that said one drink of liquor could cause you to beat your wife, or burst into flames (yes, that really was the propaganda).

I know it's a hard road to liberty, but at some point you will hopefully realize that if you need to tell me what I can or can not do, you are not a supporter of liberty, but rather, authoritarianism. If you think the State needs to tell me how to behave, you believe in tyranny. And if you think that the state should do this with the will of [insert diety here] in mind, you believe in religious tyranny. Freedom, and liberty, require trust in your fellow man (and woman) whether you disagree with them or not.

This^^ + rep for a great post.

Consideringronpaul keeps claiming they cannot live in a society with people that don't fit into their definition of certain things yet they are all around you and you are far outnumbered by them?

[affa]

This^^ + rep for a great post.

Consideringronpaul keeps claiming they cannot live in a society with people that don't fit into their definition of certain things yet they are all around you and you are far outnumbered by them?

thank you, and no worries. the seed of liberty is planted. it will grow, with time. it always does.

[Rebel4Liberty]

Pot smokers were all Democrats as well. The Republicans were right here because pot will cause you to be stupid and causes people to do bad things. It was right to arrest these people and do everything possible to stop them from smoking because if we didn't stop them, more people would smoke, move on to harder drugs, go crazy, and put severe danger onto our families and communities.

I don't post very much, just lurk and read, but I would say I COULD have been exactly like you BIW. I came from a hard leaning right-wing family of old money. It was ingrained in my head, go to school and get good grades as society requires me to. The school system has never fit with my perception, but what really started the ball rolling with the incessant D.A.R.E presentations and the "just say NO" about ALL DRUGS.

There was no differentiation, just the "marijuana gate way" would lead to the destruction of your life. I have to hand it to them, as I was deathly afraid and terrorized of all drugs and see them as evil. My mother smoked pot when I wasn't around and I would feel scared of her doing it when I caught her. The govt had me successfully INDOCTRINATED to their ideals, but come around 15-16 I got into surfing, and long with that came the infamous peer-pressure scenario and experimentation moment of smoking pot. It wasn't about "peer-pressure" as the scape goat, it was finding out what happens.

The truth led to the breaking of ALL INDOCTRINATION instilled in me. I'm wide awake at 16, I feel alone and see what have been taught has been nothing but a LIE. You DO NOT go back once its broken, everything changes from hence forth. I couldn't understand "who am I harming smoking this" "how am I going to do harm to society using this" and I concluded that I am NOT being responsible, and if there is harm, then it is only MYSELF. It caused me to REVOLT against the whole pattern and I could see that I was being "trained" to work for the system, a system I detested. I could have done very well, made 3.5 grade average and applied myself for "college", but I didn't TRUST what I was being taught and I said NO.

I love how society equates education to attendance in a school/college, yet the late and great Einstein says "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school" and true to this quote I have indeed learned more than I ever did inside school. The advent of the internet has led me to triple the amount otherwise. I come off as very college educated though never having step foot inside one. I have been smoking 16 years now and I have close to an IQ of 100.

So I could have been another right wing drone programmed to work for the system, but discovering the real truth of cannabis,my awareness, and critical thinking which would eventually lead my research to the root of everything coming full circle with the CENTRAL BANKING issue and the ROTHSCHILD dynasty! KNOWING the real truth as opposed to what you are made to believe is liberating. I feel happier each day to know this establishment is crumbling and I have long awaited this mass awakening. Maybe 2012 is about shattering the illusion humanity has lived under than "doom" and "disaster"

[ryanmkeisling]

I don't post very much, just lurk and read, but I would say I COULD have been exactly like you BIW. I came from a hard leaning right-wing family of old money. It was ingrained in my head, go to school and get good grades as society requires me to. The school system has never fit with my perception, but what really started the ball rolling with the incessant D.A.R.E presentations and the "just say NO" about ALL DRUGS.

There was no differentiation, just the "marijuana gate way" would lead to the destruction of your life. I have to hand it to them, as I was deathly afraid and terrorized of all drugs and see them as evil. My mother smoked pot when I wasn't around and I would feel scared of her doing it when I caught her. The govt had me successfully INDOCTRINATED to their ideals, but come around 15-16 I got into surfing, and long with that came the infamous peer-pressure scenario and experimentation moment of smoking pot. It wasn't about "peer-pressure" as the scape goat, it was finding out what happens.

The truth led to the breaking of ALL INDOCTRINATION instilled in me. I'm wide awake at 16, I feel alone and see what have been taught has been nothing but a LIE. You DO NOT go back once its broken, everything changes from hence forth. I couldn't understand "who am I harming smoking this" "how am I going to do harm to society using this" and I concluded that I am NOT being responsible, and if there is harm, then it is only MYSELF. It caused me to REVOLT against the whole pattern and I could see that I was being "trained" to work for the system, a system I detested. I could have done very well, made 3.5 grade average and applied myself for "college", but I didn't TRUST what I was being taught and I said NO.

I love how society equates education to attendance in a school/college, yet the late and great Einstein says "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school" and true to this quote I have indeed learned more than I ever did inside school. The advent of the internet has led me to triple the amount otherwise. I come off as very college educated though never having step foot inside one. I have been smoking 16 years now and I have close to an IQ of 100.

So I could have been another right wing drone programmed to work for the system, but discovering the real truth of cannabis,my awareness, and critical thinking which would eventually lead my research to the root of everything coming full circle with the CENTRAL BANKING issue and the ROTHSCHILD dynasty! KNOWING the real truth as opposed to what you are made to believe is liberating. I feel happier each day to know this establishment is crumbling and I have long awaited this mass awakening. Maybe 2012 is about shattering the illusion humanity has lived under than "doom" and "disaster"

These are solid realizations, hold onto them.

[Rebel4Liberty]

Not only do I hold on to them, I stand true to conviction. That is why I love RP, true to conviction no matter what. We would have a better society if more could stand to their convictions, but sadly that might be too idealistic...

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

http://files.sharenator.com/Im_Here_To_Bump_This_Thread_Try_And_RE_Finally-s576x576-170769.jpg

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

I'm bumping this to see if anybody new to the board has made the same journey I made. That and I want to see if we can get more poll results. I think it's interesting to see the backgrounds of our posters.

[sirachman]

removed

[roderik]

TL;DR - I was a Right-Wing Neo-Con and became a borderline Anarchist Classic-Liberal Libertarian Ron Paul nut.
George Carlin and Bill Hicks helped guide me to Ron Paul.

I'm thrilled you name those two, because the guided me here as well. Kudos!

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

I think we are quite possibly twins, even down to the Vietnam vet father. I first Googled Ron Paul in 2007 after hearing what I felt was an unfair dismissal of him by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show. I had always been a social liberal and a fiscal conservative and like you went along with the neo-con doctrine after 9/11 out of my own stupidity.
Nearly the exact same realization and cause. I hope I can bring about this same awakening in others in my life, I have had great difficulty doing so, but I will keep trying.

(I never had the fear of illegal drugs though, but I never used them either.

I tried the drugs in college, August '07, and that helped kick off even more of the beliefs I had been questioning. As I said, if I can do this and go from one extreme to almost another, others can as well.

Some ask why I'm crazy about Ron Paul, well, it's pretty kick ass to finally see the world how it really is, have the fog lifted, and be with the winners full of tiger blood.


I'm thrilled you name those two, because the guided me here as well. Kudos!

Yeah I didn't get around to Bill Hicks until recently but I've been a huge George Carlin fan for years and years. In fact when I'm debating people I'll use his talking points. He was that damn good.

[aowen]

Going into 2009 I was a Neo-Con Christian struggling with myself and my religion. Coming out of 2009 I was an Atheist Libertarian Ron Paul supporter.

My god man! Congratulations. I am truly happy for you. With your newly found clarity, may the rest of your life be filled with fulfillment and success!

[JacobG18]

I was 15 during the last election and a real big neo-con, I thought the idea of staying in Iraq for a hundred years like McCain said was great thing, But after the election season was over and I was done thinking about politics I found myself in 09 and one day I came across this website, at first I found everyone here to be very wrong on foreign policy and the drug war, but after a long while of reading more here and watching Jack Hunter and Ron Paul on youtube I was converted to what I now believe is a much better way of thinking. And like everyone else said I too found it difficult to let go on my old way of thinking and come to the philosophy of liberty.

[JordanL]

(Originally written on late December)

My name is Jordan LeDoux. In 2007 I became involved in the Ron Paul grassroots effort, donating on November 5th, and working with Trevor Lyman to organize the December 16th money bomb. Afterward, I enlisted my skills as a web developer who knew just about everything about websites and programming them to the efforts of the Ron Paul Blimp project, working with Katherine Memole and Trevor Lyman again.

At the time, I was 20.

I grew up a rabidly political person, through no effort of my parents. I have been placed in the 99th percentile of every standardized test I've ever taken since I was 6, and I blame that almost entirely on the fact that I find real joy in learning, and love reading. Politics struck me from a very young age as the public expression, the public demonstration, of education. It is the efforting to make very difficult and sometimes unclear choices about convoluted situations and subjects.

That said, I was always extremely conservative. I grew up finding it rather abhorrent how disinterested in learning most of my peers were, and I was utterly convinced that my own effort would condemn me to work extra hard to support their lethargy, and that generated genuine resentment in my soul. As I would discover later, they were not lazy, they just had no hope, no dreams, and nothing to work hard for. I had been taught to believe in myself, and thus had plenty that I felt I could work for.

During the 2000 Presidential Campaign I was in 8th grade and debated my very liberal teachers about why GW was the correct choice over Al Gore. We had friendly banter on many subjects, but my ability to recall and demonstrate factual knowledge was often matched against their hard-won life experience that no facts could ever change. The facts, to me, seemed to support a very conservative view of the world, and the flippant dismissal of my hard-earned knowledge drove me further and further into a "us versus them" mentality that many conservatives find themselves in today (and many liberals for that matter).

But at the core of all my beliefs was the idea that I really, really, really liked the concept of our Constitution. That it wasn't my government which granted me rights, but rather that it was the people out of which all authority wielded by the government was derived. And all of my own opinions at their core came back to this.

I strayed. 9/11 occurred in my first week of high school, and I will never forget what my mother said as I was getting ready to walk out the door to school that morning after getting a phone call from her sister.

"Go turn on the TV," she told me. I raised an eyebrow.

"Which channel?" I asked.

"It doesn't matter."

That response scared me more than anything I have ever heard in my life. I turned on the TV, saw what was happening, and I called my Lieutenant. You see, I was part of the Civil Air Patrol, an axillary of the Air Force primarily concerned with Search & Rescue operations. While talking on the phone with my El-Tee, one of the F-15's stationed here in Portland, Oregon did a flyover at about 0.7 Mach, flying no higher than 2,000 feet. Our conversation on the phone stopped as the plane passed, and when the noise subsided I said with a scratchy voice, "They're flying SkyCap on Portland."

I don't know that someone from a slightly older generation understands just how confusing and scary that day was. It is difficult for me to be this candid, but that event stoked such genuine fear as I have never felt before and never felt since. And nothing that my parents could do to protect me, nothing that my teachers could say or think, nothing that anyone I had as any kind of authority figure in my life could possibly protect me from that.

And so, it was easy, so very easy, for me, with my already conservative leanings, to turn that fear into anger. How dare they? Who do they think they are, attacking such a powerful nation so brazenly? Let's make them fucking sorry they ever even thought to do this. My own admiration for our Constitution had been morphed by this fear into something close to superiority. I knew the philosophicals of our government, and they seemed entirely true, so that must mean that all of our actions represent those truths, right?

I was grossly unaware of just how different America was from her Constitution. I was grossly unaware of how different our actions around the rest of the world are from the professed principals which our society was supposedly founded on.

Everything in my entire life had been a lie. They had sold me idealism so that they could stop me from hoping, from dreaming. When I was a kid, I was taught that I should believe in myself. What I discovered as I became and adult was that I was living in a world where everyone else had stopped believing in themselves a long time ago, beaten into submission by the serial hypocrisy of our own society, which we all feel a part of.

I was just about ready, as this realization hit, and I began to understand just how lost our country was, to give up. Perhaps the moment to save our country from the eventual fate of desecration and defeat from within was long before I graced this planet. But then, by pure happenstance, I received a video on YouTube about Ron Paul, who was evidently running for President.

I had been thoroughly discouraged before. I didn't want any of the clearly fake and pompous buffoons the Republican party was trotting out to be a mouth-piece of a broken philosophy to lead a broken people, and I was equally uninterested in the more principled but less productive agenda of the likewise pompous and deceitful individuals from the Democrats.

Why were both sides trotting out people 40-50 years older than me who were talking with glee about how they were going to make the United States an incredible place, just about long enough for them to die, and then after that my generation was expected to perform some kind of voodoo miracle and "fix things". I had a better idea, how about gutless, worthless, heartless bastards that spent my life before I was even conceived fix it.

I was so skeptical. Surely someone that's been in Washington as long as Dr. Paul can't be serious... there's some kind of ploy here. But alas, I couldn't find any reason to hate him. I tried so very hard. Like many Americans, I felt that finding reasons to hate politicians was perhaps the only right my government felt I deserved, and dammit I would exercise it.

But no, all I heard was... sense. Just common sense. It was as if he were the child in the street, calmly telling the emperor, "but... you're not wearing clothes..."

I was enthralled. I had been about ready to give up on humans. Literally, I was ready to say "no, humans suck and I'm not dedicating any of my intellect to saving a species that is so clearly deserving of utter destruction". But Ron Paul said the same things while reminding me of the whole reason I'd ever felt politics was important to begin with: "well, sure, you can feel that way, but we solved that problem 200 years ago and put it on a piece of paper, and fixing things is as easy as following that".

Surely you jest.

But he didn't. He was serious. And more than being serious, he was right. I joined meetups, I donated money that I truly did not have, and annoyed the living daylights out of my family, all because I felt like this was my society's last chance. This was it. A cross-roads where we were choosing utter despair or solutions.

Through my efforts in 2007 and 2008, I was constantly amazed at how many people were in the same place I was. Without a home in our scripted society. But I was also amazed at how much effort our current system exerted to resist such change.

In the end, I had honestly felt it was our last, best chance. After the 2008 elections, I stopped being involved in the Tea Party as it became more and more a bumper sticker for neo-cons to pretend they knew what they were talking about. They reminded me of those children in school all those years ago, who I felt were hopeless and lethargic.

I began working on myself, spiritually. The world was such a terrible place, I felt that perhaps the only peace I could find was in my own head. And so I did. With several friends of mine I learned how to meditate effectively, and how it interacted with the Christianity I'd known all my life. I became aware of the interdependence our reality places on everything, and I began work on a project to work on a new grassroots campaign. This one would be different, I felt. I was going to try and focus it around a effort to establish a Universal Bill of Human Rights directly with the people of Earth, outside of any government.

But as I prepared to launch this effort, Occupy Wall Street started. It was curious, I felt, that so many people now seemed to agree with a problem that I identified as a 20 year-old, at the time feeling as if I was very alone.

And so I joined them. I threw myself headlong into Occupy, here in Portland of course, and ended up organizing the PR team. I began doing interviews, doing workshops, and I was constantly enthralled. There were genuine socialists that I found myself agreeing with. On the issue of institutional greed, it seemed, no ideology takes a very positive view.

But my efforts with Occupy ended up costing me my job, and now, my apartment. This week I will have to pack up my things, now homeless. I have plenty of skill... I'm a fantastic programmer with a great resume, but these are the times. Ironically, due to the Unconstitutional an brutal eviction of our protest, I don't even have a camp to set up a tent at.

It is with this backdrop that I checked in, for the first time in nearly four years, on the Presidential primary. Shocked. Ron Paul? Running again? And this time even the polls have him as a possibility? Well, I decided, I guess I can forgive my country for being four years late.

I sit now, at my computer, the last day I will be in my apartment. I still don't know where I'm going, what I'll do, or how I'll do it. I'm sure I'll get back on my feet sometime. But even now, as I face homelessness at 24 years old, as I try to budget my meals for the next two weeks, as I try to navigate the absurd bureaucracy of unemployment insurance that tries to keep telling me I don't get anything, and as I try to find reasons for this to be a happy holiday season for me, my greatest wish is for my country.

We are hurting. Corporations that are writing legislation through surrogates are hurting us. Taxation that is neither fair nor representative is hurting us. Suspension of our civil liberties is hurting us. And the myth that the citizen next to you is your enemy because they are liberal and you are not is hurting us.

While you fight with the person next to you, our country is being burned to the ground. This is not a conservative or liberal issue, this is an American issue.

It is our fault! We let it get this way!

We bought the lies, we believed the promises, and when they didn't pan out, we accepted the excuses.

It is time that we give up our naivety. It is time that we give up our hatred for each other and recognize what is really going on here. An entire integrated system is destroying us emotionally, financially, materially, and in every way possible. I thought that the last election was the only chance. I was wrong. This is truly our last chance.

Perhaps if the country does not elect Ron Paul, they truly deserve the destruction waiting for us. This is not time for timidity or talking points. Listen to the man who will tell you the truth, because in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. You may not agree with everything, but here's the reality: there is not a single thing any other candidate will do that you agree with. If you do, it is simply because the reality of what they are doing is well hidden.

It is our elected officials responsibility to uphold our Constitution, and it is OUR responsibility to fire them when they do not. Ron Paul is the only choice left.

[Athan]

I was progressive leaning... to a point (mostly upset Bush was fucking over our rights), then I saw Liberty's kids and turned into a full on supporter of the ideas of the American Revolution and Liberty. That show allowed me to see what this nation was created for. When I saw Paul in 20707, I pretty much started abandoning any progressive socialist thinking and became a full Austrian economist supporter.

[JordanL]

Bump for new people who may be joining us after last night's debate. :)

[wgadget]

Someone should start a Neocons Anonymous 12-step program.

LOL

[ronpaul12]

yup, before I dound Paul I thought anyone with an R next to their name was a great leader.