Where do YOU split with the good doctor?

erect

erect

New member
Jun 3, 2007
3,796
154
0
Esoterica
twitter.com
Obviously no candidate will ever be perfect, but soooo many people say that they agree with Ron Paul on "just about everything" ... lets get that out in the open already.

Here's one of my beef patties: War on Drugs is bad, anyone not getting a handout agrees. I also strongly believe that ALL non-violent crimes should carry no jail time.

I split in a very major way with RP pardoning everyone locked up. Here's why:

wikipedia said:
In 1929, the Bureau of Prohibition agent Eliot Ness began an investigation of Capone and his business, attempting to get a conviction for Prohibition violations. Frank J. Wilson investigated Capone's income tax violations, which the government decided was more likely material for a conviction. In 1931 Capone was indicted for income tax evasion and various violations of the Volstead Act (Prohibition) at the Chicago Federal Building in the courtroom of Judge James Herbert Wilkerson[23].
Click to expand...

Al Capone's isn't an isolated case by any long stretch. Our law enforcement / judicial system is LAZY about getting the facts. It's much easier to lock up someone being investigated for rape and murder because they were smoking a joint (or avoiding an arbitrary tax number) as opposed to getting facts or catching them in the act of something more insidious.

If that's really all they got Al Capone for, arguably the most infamous "criminal" in history, all existing cases will have to be reopened and thoroughly investigated ... AGAIN ... before I'd be ok with everyone back on the streets day 1.

Yes, there are holes all throughout my argument, the biggest problem when I mull it over is that I'm mindfucking myself based on fear. YES I'm fully aware that most locked up on drug charges don't kill people. I'm just saying RP paints with a very broad brush here saying to pardon everyone ... I suggest taking a closer look at individuals because /if/ he gets elected every one one of his policies will be under a microscope. This is one that can have some seriously bad consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: webnet


Do you believe that locking someone up for a crime that you dont consider a crime because they cant get caught for the real crime they committed is a morally sound way of serving justice?

If you dont have convincing evidence of rape, then there was no rape. Thats how a just system has to work. Otherwise youre going police state direction fast. The slightest notion of someone being a "rapist" voids his human rights in this society. Wikileaks isnt even a thing anymore, all because the guy who lead it conveniently committed rape in one of the most pro feminist jurisdiction in the world.


Freedom and/or morally sound governing go hand in hand with a reduction in perceived personal safety. If you want that, go vote public healthcare.
 
Thats exaclty what a rapist, and all those who are falsely accused of being a rapist, would say. :rolleyes:
 
I see this as a positive. RP first and foremost sees this as a Constitutional violation. The States should regulate drugs, as they do with alcohol. Notice how different states and even counties handle alcohol. How effective was prohibition? Is there any difference between the violence of the 20's gangsters and the drug dealers of today? There is also the stance that our drug laws are extremely racist - simply look at the number of minorities in jail on non-violent drug charges.
 
I thought RP was only interested in pardoning non-violent drug related crimes?

Also, if no evidence is required, everybody would be in jail.
 
clyde said:
I thought RP was only interested in pardoning non-violent drug related crimes?
Click to expand...

This is correct ... IMO justice is a fat ass'd lazy bastard that made zero attempt to build a case around the real crimes (if any). Lock em up for a joint & set them free for the same reason ... never mind the other charges that weren't seriously investigated because they already had the "criminal" on "something".
 
I'm sure I split with him in many ways but they all seem so insignificant as I fill out my tax forms.
 
erect said:
Why don't you rearrange some words and run that quote through my mobster example and see how that turns out.
Click to expand...

Yea its the same. I thought you meant locking people up for bs because they cant be convicted of the real crime was something you welcome.
 
I've got to agree with wayn3. If they didn't have the evidence (or were to lazy or stupid to put together the evidence) to be convicted of another more serious crime, then they shouldn't be sitting in a prison cell. Even if that means releasing some horrible people, it will also mean releasing a lot more innocent people and allowing those people to begin to put their lives back together.
 
Please keep in mind the recidivism rate in America is 60%.

And those are just the ones that get caught again. In reality, prison is just a college for criminals, where they get the chance to talk to other like-minded felons, making criminal connections, learning how to make more money and cover their tracks better.

Until there is prison reform or a successful rehabilitation procedure in place, anybody you send to prison is pretty much a lost cause - if they weren't a lost cause when they went in, they will be after having spent any period of time in there
 
I really don't have anything for the most part. We disagree on many social issues but we both agree that that has little to do with the federal government, so it's moot.

I get a little uncomfortable with so much power being given to the States, though. I want as little government as possible; both federally and state. And some of the States are so back asswards that I'm concerned about the civil rights of individuals if the federal government were completely out but the States were given full authority.

I could be off about the way it would be. We haven't had the system working as it should in 250 years, so forgive me if I'm a bit hazy on how it would all work out.
 
erect said:
Here's one of my beef patties: War on Drugs is bad, anyone not getting a handout agrees. I also strongly believe that ALL non-violent crimes should carry no jail time.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly about pardoning everyone for non violent drug crimes, but couldn't disagree more about no jail for any non violent crime. That is because there is nothing morally wrong with taking drugs.

Car thieves, vandals, wire fraud, identity theft, pedophiles etc etc? You believe they shouldn't carry jail time?
 
CitizenSmif said:
I agree wholeheartedly about pardoning everyone for non violent drug crimes, but couldn't disagree more about no jail for any non violent crime. That is because there is nothing morally wrong with taking drugs.

Car thieves, vandals, wire fraud, identity theft, pedophiles etc etc? You believe they shouldn't carry jail time?
Click to expand...

No they shouldnt carry jailtime. They should do forced labor til the damages theyve caused are recovered.
 
CitizenSmif said:
Car thieves, vandals, wire fraud, identity theft, pedophiles etc etc? You believe they shouldn't carry jail time?
Click to expand...

Perhaps "victimless crimes" would have been a better phrase for me to use. All that you mentioned have victims and I consider them to be acts of violence towards one's person or property. I don't necessarily agree with jail time for vandals and such but some restitution is required.

You exclusively hurt yourself by drinking bleach and no bureaucracy should be involved.

Forget what I said, where do YOU part ways? I very much like to squash bugs in my arguments and am asking you to point out kinks in the armour. I've recently been mainlining the red pill and Stefan has some pretty convincing augments against Paul just because he'll get libertarianism crucified if given shot within this flawed system. To me, the message is what matters and Ron sews seeds like no other.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MSTeacher
The question is, is it worth locking up all those people who's only crime was a non violent drug use and even the one time they got caught just so our police force can be lazy and hope to bust harder criminals on soft charges.
 
RP's pro-life stance irritates me.

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”

I'm not sure how someone who spends so much time thinking about personal liberty can justify the state's involvement in the abortion issue on any level.
 
Im not parting ways with ron paul at all. Not that it matters? If he gets elected hell get shot and then return to business as usual. Debating this kind of stuff is just a time waster. Youd be better off exploring options of how to leave the clusterfuck you live in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back