Those of you who are unworthy of my time are so because your decisions are based on emotion and not reason. Therefore, there is no reasoning w/ you.

Abuse? Develop a thicker skin. You’re the ones throwing “fool” around. Cute of you to try to explain me by “what your scripture says”. Your scripture is designed to suppress questions and discredit true wisdom.

Believers aren’t liars, they are marks. Clergy are the liars.

Finally – I don’t recognise “prophets”. Being a prophet in the time of Jesus was a vey lucrative trade. Gullible rubes gave you lodging, food, and undeserved respect.

When drugs are legal, it will render the Drug Cartel impotent. People who WANT drugs will have to have a PRESCRIPTION and pay the tax the government places on it. When this happens, how many of you will be using or trying heroin, cocaine, etc.? Exactly. None of you. Only people who use drugs NOW will be able to purchase them LEGALLY and only with a prescription that doctors will LEGALLY be able to prescribe cutting out the “middle man” the drug cartel. It also puts the responsibility of the addict on the doctor. Who is responsible for the drug addict now? No one.

Ron Paul is more intelligent than you give him credit. He is not “Crazy Uncle Ron”. He knows that when something is subsidized, we get more of it. How many times have you heard him say that? Use discernment! but first you have to listen.

I know it’s hard to listen to someone who has up to now irritates the living daylights out of you. I do it every day and believe me, my stress is out of sight! But I have to…to be thorough in my search to know the truth. I don’t say to myself, “Ack! another video someone wants me to watch of their favorite candidate” or “ANOTHER email he/she wants me to read about Joe Smo” then delete it! No! I read, watch or listen with an open mind. Usually there is confirmation that this person or this candidate is WRONG…and I tell them so. (Isn’t that right, Don?)

On illegal immigration, Ron Paul has said when he is President, HE WILL REMOVE THE MAGNETS. Do y ou understand what that means? He will do away with SSI, welfare, ANY AND ALL PERKS that draw them here. How will that change anything? Let me tell you. Illegals will leave on their own….IN DROVES! Not one single deportation order will have to be issued, no expensive walls built, and very few border patrols will be required. Is that genius or what?

Here is an article I hope you’ll read. Just about every problem could be eliminated simply by electing Ron Paul for President 2012. http://immigrationcounters.com/datasource.html

Do you find it difficult at times to understand your doctor? That may be your problem with DOCTOR Ron Paul as he has that irritating trait that some doctors have. They tend to talk over our heads and take it for granted that we’ve understood every word they’ve said, but we don’t. So what WE have to do is try to think like he thinks, or ask him to explain what he just said. OR…you can listen to those who do understand him. I pray you will.

Before I forget, hope you and yours have a most blessed CHRISTmas.

I noticed you did not respond to my article “Outing Ron Paul.” My comment to Carol go for you too if you would care to weigh in.

BTW: Ron Paul has been outed by his supporters as a closet voluntaryist / anarchist, not me. So, there really is no sense defending that any more, he has admitted he takes those positions and “likes voluntaryism.”

Did you know that about him, that he was using the Constitution to hide behind?

They planned on “dropping the anarchist bomb” on his fans later…and we worried Ron would create too many “We the people types” which were antithetical to his vision if he did not come out of the closet.

I assume that would be you, right? A truly patriotic guy, a believer…caught up with this guy.

So, if you knew about it, lets talk turkey without all the smoke.

If you didn’t know, lets talk about what that means to you now.

God bless

Thank you for your response.

Ron Paul recently said:

“States should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”

Notice how this man who has been a LAWMAKER for many years, and is now seeking the Highest Law Enforcement position in the land, equates law enforcement with unlawful violence.

This is to be noted.

At one time we just called Ron Paul “The eccentric uncle of the GOP” because we had no explanation for this kind of off the wall reasoning. Eccentric was the only word we knew to explain it.

Now, we finally have a key for understanding such out of the wild blue yonder type statements, and most importantly, how what makes no sense to us, makes perfect sense to him. The word is: voluntaryism.

In that view, that statement by Ron Paul is not eccentric at all, but is PERFECTLY and PRECISELY consistent with the voluntaryist philosophy, and that same thinking is rampant. It is a key to their ethics, etc.

No violence is THE big thing for them, the ultimate immorality and they consider any action by government to be violence, including taxes, regulation, law enforcement, traffic laws, etc. Anything that curbs their personal liberty one iota, even your rights, property, etc. is the same as murder in their eyes.

Law enforcement is simply verboten because that is VIOLENCE—hence any compliance with laws should be, you guessed it, VOLUNTARY. This is where they get the name. Lawfulness is voluntary. Think about that.

This is why they consider government innately immoral. It is violent by its very nature and existence, and everything it does, EVERYTHING is innately considered violent.

When I first started looking at this, I looked at a video titled “Ron Paul: I like Voluntaryism.” This was linked to article above “Outing Ron Paul” and I suggested looking at the comment section for a flavor of the following. Here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ybf2L4Guw

“@Wesker1982 Yup, I usually tell people, “How can you tell if Gvt is force? Because you risk getting MURDERED by them for resisting ANY of their arbitrary dictates, from something as mundane as getting ticketed for parking just two inches into a fire-hydrant zone, to antiwar protests, or resisting the IRS.”

“There are ONLY 2 ways in which the Gvt be it Fed or State, interacts w/its EMPLOYERS, the Citizenry, when their own BOSSES resist their Color of Law dictates:
1. Lawsuit
2. SWAT-raid
Choose”

Note the comment: “You risk getting MURDERED by them for resisting ANY of their arbitrary dictates, from something as mundane as getting ticketed for parking just two inches into a fire-hydrant zone, to antiwar protests, or resisting the IRS.”

See the equation in their mind? This is what you are seeing in Ron Paul that makes no sense. It makes perfect sense through their lens. The lens is absurd however.

There is REAL paranoia here, and it is duplicated in the whole line.

Read this in that context:

Ron Paul, End the Fed: “In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”

Of course it is incapable of limiting government sufficiently, the Constitution instituted government. Guess what Ron Paul really thinks of the Constitution he continually cloaks himself in?

Now the thing missing from their whole argument is this—and they DO NOT like to hear it:

Decoration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Our Government did not just appear as an entity running amuck among us, like a creature from the swamp. No, WE the People instituted it for an express reason. It is not a thing of itself, but an institution we created to serve us. It is not a thing of itself as they suggest it is.

In social compact, by common agreement, so we can do things together we could never do alone, and still be at maximum liberty i.e. secure our rights (from others who would trample them) we agreed to limit our liberty a bit, particularly where it infringes on the rights of another with equal rights, and the good of the whole as the whole sees it.

That instituted government has, not arbitrary power, but just powers that are derived from “the consent of the governed.” It is not arbitrary, but consented to. (How precise those Founders were).

So, in actuality, when voluntaryists say no one has the right to limit their liberty, etc., what they are really claiming the right to trample the rights of others that those laws protect.

Doesn’t sound quite as benign as “we demand our liberty.”

Now, this thinking is rampant in the OWS movement. Find any site on YouTube re the UC Davis incident, and read the comments. Same philosophical view.

Where does it come from. How about this, from Graham Wright, the guy who produced the video “Ron Paul is a VOluntaryist.” From his bio:

“I became a libertarian in 2007, after I came across Ron Paul and wanted to know more about his ideas. I took libertarianism to its logical conclusion in 2008 and became an anarchist. My main inspirations are Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and David Friedman.”

Ultimately, their problem is an incorrect view of human nature, and do they consider themselves the elitist thinkers among us, the very type of person the Founders warned us about.

I will leave you with an extended quotation from George Washington’s Farewell Address, and it is powerful:

God bless

“This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.” —George Washington, Farewell Address.

Sorry I missed your post.

Re: “Sapient’s post is astonishingly vacuous! He presents no argument for his allegation that Ron Paul is an anarchist, but tells us that someone else, with whom we already disagree, says he is an anarchist.
No credible argument can be made that Paul is for anything but the rule of Law.”

Good deal. May I invite you to my article “Outing Ron Paul” on this forum at
http://laiglesforum.com/outing-ron-paul/2850.htm#comments

There is a lot of evidence, etc that I hope you will fill in the “vacuous” gap.

I have already put some questions to Carol, who also is a RP supporter, so, read my article, check the reference I present there, and then consider reading my response to her, and jump right in.

Glad to have you, and look forward to it. Civility expected.

God bless and Merry CHRISTmas

Ron Paul: “You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let’s just get rid of all the drug laws.”

Ron Paul, End the Fed: “In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”

Thank you, always, and to all others, greetings and Merry CHRISTmas.

There are two kingdoms in our world, only two, and there is a God authored perpetual enmity between them until the end of time on earth. That is the context of all human history from beginning to end, and against which all we see, and all decisions we make, must be weighed. (see Gen 3;15)

One kingdom honors God’s sovereign right to rule, specifically His right to define good and evil, while the other kingdom does not, claiming to know “good and evil” in themselves.

God’s kingdom is founded on order, truth, and the uniqueness of the life of man as the image of God, ruler of this realm, but sill subordinate to God, while the other chaos, lies, and even murder.

While the latter kingdom might be characterized in many ways, “the kingdom of lawlessness,” ultimately culminating in “the man of lawlessness” is certainly one of them. There is a characteristic of literal recoil against restraint of any kind, in the simplest of things, that is truly amazing to see. The right to trespass and miss the mark are is their creed.

God, through us in His kingdom, the Holy Spirit, righteous Government, the Church,families, even righteous business arrangements, ever works to restrain this “spirit of lawlessness” in our world, and we are to join Him in that, to be active in it as salt and light.

It was for no small reason that Samuel Adams, the father of the Revolution, when signing the Declaration of Independence, said this:

“We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun – let His Kingdom come.”

He knew what this was REALLY all about, and so did the others. They knew history, and that the tares were among the wheat in the same field. They knew they joined together in political parties to gain power. Jefferson called them “The parties of honest men and rogues into which every country is divided.”

God instituted government to control lawlessness. The Founders designed for it, and the party of lawlessness, and put barriers in front of them, to protect God’s kingdom, and give us time to react.

It begins, with insisting on honesty.

God bless

“Where the principle of difference [between political parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317

Thanks for your response. Really.

I am so very delighted to hear from you and also any other Ron Paul supporter.

I will be glad to “put up” as you say once I understand what that means specifically, and I assume you are glad to do so too–right?

BTW: for reference. I use a pen name, but its not “Bub.” Since you seem to think I might should use “Bub” instead of the one I go by, I must insist for civility in our exchanges from here on–IE no name calling, etc, OK? That should be no problem, right? Adult to adult.

No personal offense meant, but historically, RP supporters seem to have difficulty controlling themselves when Ron is challenged. I think that is an interesting expose on the viability of their entire philosophy, that everyone can control themselves without government, since it doesn’t even work on a website comment section. But, I digress–

Reminds me for some reason of what Socrates said:

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

So, I ask you Carol, to prove me, and Socrates wrong. Prove you are not losing the debate resorting to slander. Be a good example of why self control would work as a basis for whole society, rendering government needless. If you can’t, we will all have a living object lesson.

Now, just so I and the readers know where YOU are coming from in your statements above and later, and your general support of Ron Paul, I have a couple of simple questions for YOU, some as easy as Yes or No. I am going to ask you to be specific, and honest. Fair enough?

First, you said there were no facts in my post, only insult. OK…I am glad to let you defend your statement, so, let me ask:

Did you read the entire article or just see it was not favorable to Ron Paul, and react as you did?

If you read it, did you take time to view the videos I linked to as evidence of fact?

Those are not my words, but Ron Paul’s, stating he was a voluntaryist and took voluntaryist positions. They were also the words of Ron Paul supporters using his own words to prove he is in fact a voluntaryist in political philosophy. Did they report his words accurately? Did I report their words accurately? Do you accept accurate reports as fact?

Did you read the caption to the video, and my reproduction of it in the article, particularly the “long term strategy” part? Was that accurately reproduced? Do you see that strategy in what Ron says in interviews? (You are not going to try to use that same strategy here are you?

Did you read the discussions re the implications of Ron being a voluntaryist following the video “Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist” on the Mises Institute, which was founded by Ron Paul’s former congressional chief of staff, so you know that I, in fact, reproduced them accurately?

Carol, I did not report MY own words, but Ron Paul’s and theirs, quoting him, and then a discussion of what it all mean when viewed through their eyes. I reported that accurately. Do you accept an accurate, verifiable, report as fact?

Was what I said or what they said the insult you saw?

Did you read the articles I linked to on Voluntaryism so you know what it is? Did you hear Ron Paul say…”I am a voluntarist…” Did you see that proved by his supporters using his own words?

You ask how Paul differs from the Constitution.

Have you read the Federalist Papers and/ or other writings by the Founders explaining not only what the Constitution is all about, but also how to read it, so you know when it is being misused, or whether something differs from it?

From what you read, is a voluntaryist the same as a Constitutionalist? Ron Paul doesn’t think so:

“End the Fed: In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”

Carol, as you speak for Ron Paul, if the Constitution is not capable of achieving “what we would like,” precisely what is the “what we would like” he / you are talking about that the Constitution is incapable of achieving? I am asking for Ron Paul’s vision of an ideal and achievable society. Is it the same vision as the Founders had, or something else? If the Constitution doesn’t go there, what does?

Perhaps Ron Paul should be presenting what he actually believes WOULD take us to his vision, rather than using the Constitution as a means to an end. Seems more honest.

When we continue, I will assume you have done your homework, and that we can talk about whether / how the first principles and assumptions of Voluntaryism, which Ron Paul embraces, differs from the first principles and assumptions of our Founders embodied in the Declaration and Constitution….and what history says about both.

That is the real question sin’t.

Second question for you–and again, no offense, but be honest.

Are YOU a closet voluntaryist / anarchist as Ron Paul is said to be by his own supporters, taking limited government positions and appealing to the Constitution as a means to an end which is no government at all rather than limited government?

Do you believe as Jefferson put it “that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men,” or perhaps, as Voluntaryists believe, that the whole idea of government, even limited government formed by a social compact of the entire “We the people,” to secure their rights, changeable by us through amendment, enforcing the will of the majority while respecting the inalienable rights of the minority, bound by due process and rule of law, is still immoral if it limits YOUR liberty in any way?

Do you consider us “We the people types” antithetical to your and Ron Paul’s ideal society.

Do you believe everyone should be able to “do what is right in their own eyes” with no limits? Do you believe that would be good for a whole nation and would work over time? What is the historical experience of mankind with those positions? ie where has it worked? Why would this time be different?

That will be our discussion, and I will ask you to “put up or shut up.”

Now, lets nail down the question of Authority.

Will you accept the clear statements made in Federalist Papers and the writings of the Founders as they explained what the Constitution means, and the assumptions it is ground on, and their vision for America, as authoritative?

If what the Founders say the Constitution is all about, and what Ron Paul says is different, will you accept that as a refutation of Ron Paul, or does HE know better than Washington, Jay, Madison, Hamilton, Adams and the others, what America is really all about?

If you are genuinely pro-Constitution and Spirit of the Founding, and you find Ron Paul is not, will you publicly denounce him, right here on this forum?

Be honest.

OK…here, according to the Architect of the Constitution James Madison, is THE big problem every society must deal with, and the implication, as a society seeks to structure itself and institute a government to secure their rights,etc.

The Constitution was meant to solve two problems resulting from THE problem:

“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. ” –James Madison, Federalist 51

Madison said, the basic, permanent problem was that there was something in human nature made government necessary. Do Ron Paul and you agree or disagree?

Madison said the purpose of the Constitution was to solve two issues that came from that BIG problem. FIRST the government had to be able to govern the governed, and SECOND some way had to be found to oblige that same government to control itself.

The answer was the Constitution.

Do you and/or Ron Paul accept with Madison that while it must be obliged to control itself Government must also be able to govern the governed…or is the whole idea of being governed immoral?

I look forward to your answer(s)

God bless…and thanks for asking.
Merry CHRISTmas

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 15– “Why has Government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”