You want to end the war on terror? End the war on drugs. Stop making plants so fu*king profitable for terrorists

Paul supported Reagan in 1976 and 1980 because he was the only one seriously talking about cutting the size of government. Once Reagan got into office, Paul was one of his most outspoken critics. Paul correctly felt betrayed because Regan revealed that he cared a lot more about cutting taxes than actually cutting government. That's why he ran against Bush in 1988 as a Libertarian.

Afternoon_Delight: Speaking of wars, that article doesn't really address the Cold War. How would Ron Paul have faced down Gorbachev and the Soviet bloc?

He would have stopped sending them monthly checks like Reagan did, which is what Ron proposed at the time.

It's a rEVOLution! I don't care where it's going, but I don't care because they use buzzwords like 'revolution' and 'moneybomb' and 'blimp'. I mean, how cool is that? The guy has a blimp and dumped tea in Boston harbor, just like our forefathers! He's like a new Paul Revere! In every way! Moneybomb! Blimp! Revolution! oMFG I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm So. DAMN. EXCITED.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's decide who other dead people would vote for:
Ghandi would vote for Barack Obama
Hitler would vote for Tancredo
Mother Teresa is a big fan of Kucinich
Ghengis Khan also likes Kucinich.
Abe Vigoda is a big supporter of Edwards
The guy who invented the elevator is a big fan of Huckabee
Elvis likes Giuliani
Weird Al's Parents and Lisa 'Left-Eye' Lopez like Romney.

This Is Bold Text: Ghandi would vote for Barack Obama

Ghandi wasn't nearly that gullible.

gimmedaloot: You want to end the war on terror? End the war on drugs. Stop making plants so fu*king profitable for terrorists

WIN!!!

No way Reagan would vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a Republican, most dead people vote Democrat.

Crosshair: gimmedaloot: You want to end the war on terror? End the war on drugs. Stop making plants so fu*king profitable for terrorists

WIN!!!

I'm just guessing here, so I might be wrong, but I think that The Terrorists, whomever they may be, seem to get more money from opium and heroin than from marijuana or other gateway drugs.

I'm very much for the legalization of pot. I've never smoked pot. Never even smoked a cigarette, but i'm still for its legalization. Heroin, though, should remain illegal. And as long as it remains illegal, prices will be high, and terrorists will get their funding.

Ronald Reagan would have done whatever the hell his handlers told him to do. His entire political career was composed of reading scripts written for him by people with shiatloads of money. He ushered in the age of Corporate Oligarchy where profits became sacred and people became sacrificial. That his alleged solution to the Cold War involved handing over all of our money to defense contractors should give evidence to where his true loyalties ran.

GurneyHalleck: His entire political career was composed of reading scripts written for him by people with shiatloads of money.

He's an ACTOR. That's what actors do!

fta: As Reagan said once said when a debate moderator cut him short, "I paid for this microphone."

reagan didn't say that. how hard is it to get a quote right?

This Is Bold Text: I'm just guessing here, so I might be wrong, but I think that The Terrorists, whomever they may be, seem to get more money from opium and heroin than from marijuana or other gateway drugs.

What do you think opium and heroin are made from? They are made from the poppy, a plant.

Not to mention the whole "gateway drug" thing is bunk.

Crosshair: Not to mention the whole "gateway drug" thing is bunk.

Yeah I didn't intend the conventional meaning, I meant drugs that are considered "not as bad"

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification.

Afternoon_Delight: create vast new sources of tax revenue

You say that as if it were a good thing.

Afternoon_Delight: The late Harry Brown, one of my libertarian heroes, used to refer to it as 'the insane War on Drugs'. He was quite correct.

Oh great, the troll-in-chief is deciding to be a "libertarian". By the way, Harry Browne wanted to impeach your heartthrob, Bush.

I agree with your position, but I'm not accepting this libertarian conversion unless you renounce, wholly and completely, Bush and his policy of aggressive war. Until then, you stay farkied as a neocon troll.

Afternoon_Delight: This is not going to change. Ever.

Legalize all of it.

You do make a really good point, however I don't necessarily think it will be as effective as you think.
You're saying to legalize heroin for everyone, even children?

Generally, I'm very much for the removal of many laws, especially laws for the safety of the stupid, such as seatbelt laws or fireoworks laws. Certain things that endanger others without giving them the chance to avoid it should be illegal. For example, I think smoking should be like sex: legal with other consenting adults, but chainsmoking in your car while your kids ride in back should illegal. There are, however, some drugs that mess you up so much that one time can pretty much ruin your life.

I dunno, there's a lot of grey area in this and unfortunately we've dug a hole that we're not climbing out of in the near future.

wait, I thought Nixon started the war on drugs?

Afternoon_Delight: It should all be legal. All of it. That would reduce hard-core usage dramatically, especially among kids.

A kid can't get a drink at a bar. No way. But that same kid can get whatever he wants on the schoolyard. Ironically, that's because what he wants is illegal.

Legalize ALL OF IT and you take it away from kids, dry up the gangs, defund the Taliban (and numerous other groups), save family farms, create vast new sources of tax revenue ('for the children', or whatever) and simultaneously end the national financial blood-letting of interdiction, prosecution and imprisonment of users and suppliers.

The late Harry Brown, one of my libertarian heroes, used to refer to it as 'the insane War on Drugs'. He was quite correct.

I used to bartend and I've done drugs aplenty. Liquor is the same as anything else and somehow we survive with its presence. On top of that, we had a constitutional amendment to outlaw distilled spirits and then another amendment to undo that one.

Where was the amendment outlawing 'drugs'?


The fact is that if you live in an urban area, as most of the population does, you (or your kids) can get pot or coke with a phone call - virtually 24/7. Heroin, X, other pills, etc. may take a few days longer but it's readily available through a friend of a friend.

This is not going to change. Ever.

Legalize all of it.



Did... Did Afternoon_Delight just say that?

"You're saying to legalize heroin for everyone, even children?"

Tobacco and Alcohol aren't legal for children either, don't be silly.

Afternoon_Delight: It should all be legal. All of it. That would reduce hard-core usage dramatically, especially among kids.

A kid can't get a drink at a bar. No way. But that same kid can get whatever he wants on the schoolyard. Ironically, that's because what he wants is illegal.

Legalize ALL OF IT and you take it away from kids, dry up the gangs, defund the Taliban (and numerous other groups), save family farms, create vast new sources of tax revenue ('for the children', or whatever) and simultaneously end the national financial blood-letting of interdiction, prosecution and imprisonment of users and suppliers.

The late Harry Brown, one of my libertarian heroes, used to refer to it as 'the insane War on Drugs'. He was quite correct.

I used to bartend and I've done drugs aplenty. Liquor is the same as anything else and somehow we survive with its presence. On top of that, we had a constitutional amendment to outlaw distilled spirits and then another amendment to undo that one.

Where was the amendment outlawing 'drugs'?


The fact is that if you live in an urban area, as most of the population does, you (or your kids) can get pot or coke with a phone call - virtually 24/7. Heroin, X, other pills, etc. may take a few days longer but it's readily available through a friend of a friend.

This is not going to change. Ever.

Legalize all of it.

You feeling okay over there? I only ask because...well, I agree with the sentiment in your post, which is about as common as a full solar eclipse.

BTW, This is Bold Text, I don't want to speak for A_D on this, but in my own humble opinion, legalization and regulation are two very different subjects. Cigarettes (as an example) are legal, but it's not okay for little Johnny to light up after a spelling quiz. You can legalize drugs, but still effectively regulate them to at least make it marginally more difficult for kids to get their hands on them. As it is, most inner cities have an open-air market for those types of products. At least legalization would put the dealership role in the hands of organizations that actually care about regulatory compliance (as opposed to people who are already breaking the law just by selling the stuff in the first place).

don't forget the six times he raised taxes.

Afternoon_Delight:

Who the hell are you, and what have you done with Afternoon_Delight.

Poopspasm: regulation are two very different subjects. Cigarettes (as an example) are legal

But then it will be illegal for little Johnny to shoot up, and so he'll want to do it even more, and it will be far more easily available if the guy down the street is doing it.

I'm reminded to the Onion article "4th grader can't wait to become addicted to cigarettes".

Afternoon_Delight: Legalize ALL OF IT and you take it away from kids, dry up the gangs, defund the Taliban (and numerous other groups), save family farms, create vast new sources of tax revenue ('for the children', or whatever) and simultaneously end the national financial blood-letting of interdiction, prosecution and imprisonment of users and suppliers.

Can someone exaplin to me why nearly every "small government conservative" I've ever met in my life is absolutely, fundamentally opposed to needless taxes except when it comes to proposed taxes on drugs should they become legal?

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Who the hell are you, and what have you done with Afternoon_Delight.

The mods prolly threated him with bannination if he didn't stop posting nonsense images in every thread, the need for attention overrode his loyalty to his shtick and he complied...

This Is Bold Text: But then it will be illegal for little Johnny to shoot up, and so he'll want to do it even more, and it will be far more easily available if the guy down the street is doing it.

I'm reminded to the Onion article "4th grader can't wait to become addicted to cigarettes".

It's already illegal, so nothing really changes on that front. The difference is, instead of just walking up the block and buying whatever he wants, he'll have to go through a regulated entity that has its own incentives for compliance (loss of license, etc). It's still possible, but I would opine that it would actually become more difficult for kids to get their hands on it.

The president that gave America AIDS would vote for Ron Paul. Noted.

Looks like Pinocchio is trying to become a real boy.

Afternoon_Delight: Churchill2004: Oh great, the troll-in-chief is deciding to be a "libertarian". By the way, Harry Browne wanted to impeach your heartthrob, Bush.

I agree with your position, but I'm not accepting this libertarian conversion unless you renounce, wholly and completely, Bush and his policy of aggressive war. Until then, you stay farkied as a neocon troll.


OK, first of all, take the 'troll' thing and stick it up your ass.

Second, I am in NO WAY enamored with president Bush. I voted libertarian throughout the 80's and 90's. I was a member of the Harris County Libertarian party and I supported Ron Paul long before it was cool.

I've met Harry Browne and he autographed a copy of his book Why Government Doesn't Work for me.


Yes, he was 110% opposed to the intervention in Iraq (and everywhere else), but people can disagree on that and STILL agree on a lot of other things.

F*ck off.

Today in Trolldom:

2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.


4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.

6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.

7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.

Afternoon_Delight: Speaking of wars, that article doesn't really address the Cold War. How would Ron Paul have faced down Gorbachev and the Soviet bloc?

Pfft. Just like Reagan. Wait until they're self-destructing, then take credit for hit.

sigdiamond2000

Im a small government libertarian, not a small government conservative, but I can still answer your question. We are opposed to the cig/alcohol/pot/heroin tax too, its just we assume they are going to exist, so we figure its a decent selling point for those a little leary about making the product legal. For example, the only reason tobacco is still legal (IMO) is that it raises so much money for the states.

I saw an article a few months ago talking about some meeting with Reagan, during it Reagan started talking about the gold standard and one of his aides went off on a "Not this again. Will you stop bringing that up, we cant change to the gold standard" rant. Apparently they had to keep talking him out of it, in sorta the same way they kept removing the "Tear down this wall" from his speeches. Only, on the gold standard, they always managed to talk him into not bringing it up.

Reagan circa 64. Sure.

Reagan circa 80. Not so sure.

sigdiamond2000: Can someone exaplin to me why nearly every "small government conservative" I've ever met in my life is absolutely, fundamentally opposed to needless taxes except when it comes to proposed taxes on drugs should they become legal?

I'm more of a geolibertarian than a "small government conservative," but I support taxes on drugs. How big of a kick in the pants is that?

And the reason is very simple: I think that one of the purposes of government is to (in economic jargon terms) "internalize externalities." The societal cost of drugs should be borne by those using them, rather than passed on to others -- which is one reason (of many) why incarcerating non-violent drug offenders is so annoying. Paying for people to be non-productive citizens is just wrong.

This Is Bold Text: But then it will be illegal for little Johnny to shoot up, and so he'll want to do it even more, and it will be far more easily available if the guy down the street is doing it.

It's already illegal to do heroin.

This is just from personal experience, but guess what two drugs were the hardest for me to get when I was in high school.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cigarettes and Alcohol. Cigarettes were by far the hardest to get. Alcohol was easier but you still had to know someone and they had to really trust you to even let you in on their group. Pot was by far the easiest. Cocaine, mushrooms, and such were available to me, but I never tried them. I still know a few people that know someone that could get me whatever illegal drug I wanted.

Afternoon_Delight: Why don't progressives ever progess?

I dunno. Why don't conservatives ever conserve? Why do you park on a driveway and drive on a parkway?

Snarfangel

internalize externalities

Whenever I see a phrase like that I have to reply:

Coase Theorem

/May not apply in this case
//Then again, it may

I'm all for legalization of drugs. The libs would all be too stoned to go out and vote;)

There's a lot they have in common.

Plus Ron Paul supported Ronald Reagan from Reagan's early campaigning in '76. They were good friends and partners in politics.

Reagan built a big army in the US, but he hardly used it during his 8 years in office. He preferred diplomacy to end the Cold War, and it worked. Ron Paul supports the same philosophy. Russia had nukes, they were considered a threat to the US for a very long time, but not one single bomb was dropped.

Right now, we are contemplating on War with Iran, under the same scare tactics as the red scare era (replace Communist with Terrorist). Except this time, we might actually go forward with this war. Ron Paul supports the same logic as we did with Russia, try to achieve peace without violence and without the force of the military.

It's one of the many reasons why I will be voting for Paul in the primaries.

Snarfangel: The societal cost of drugs should be borne by those using them, rather than passed on to others -- which is one reason (of many) why incarcerating non-violent drug offenders is so annoying. Paying for people to be non-productive citizens is just wrong.

I'll buy that.

Afternoon_Delight:

I wish it was a lot less, which makes me a conservative.

Like wearing a dress makes a transvestite a woman.

Afternoon_Delight: Why don't progressives ever progess? Mine has been a fairly common stance amongst notable conservatives for some time. See: William F. Buckley, for example.

WFB early on claimed the war in Iraq was lost.

Do you side with him on that point, also?

Afternoon_Delight 2007-12-28 02:28:32 PM

OK, seriously, that was funny. You're on a roll A_D

Like wearing a dress makes a transvestite a woman.

Or like briefly stepping out of character makes a troll just a regular, run-of-the-mill asshole.

Ronald "The Aliens Are Coming! The Aliens Are Coming!" Reagan?

Dead Men Don't Vote.

Afternoon_Delight: Afternoon_Delight: Why don't progressives ever progess? Mine has been a fairly common stance amongst notable conservatives for some time. See: William F. Buckley, for example.


keithgabryelski: WFB early on claimed the war in Iraq was lost. Do you side with him?


Think. THINK through your hate - if you can.

You don't have to agree with 100% of someone else's positions in order to agree with some or most of them. I've already said this, yet here comes this line of attack again. No doubt, I'll hear it again.

What's wrong with you people? What's the matter with you?

I'd ask you the same ... you went non-linear on that one pretty quickly.

I was asking for clarification on your position.

I happen to not agree with WFB 100% of the time, also.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: No way Reagan would vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a Republican, most dead people vote Democrat.
Well played.

keithgabryelski: I was asking for clarification on your position.

Why must you hate Afternoon_Delight?? Leave him alone!

Stop hating, Hatey McHaterson!

Afternoon_Delight: You don't have to agree with 100% of someone else's positions in order to agree with some or most of them. I've already said this, yet here comes this line of attack again. No doubt, I'll hear it again.

Yet you seem to have no problem disagreeing with people 100%.

Tell me something, A_D...
Do you call someone a "liberal" before or after you decide you dislike and disagree with them?