RGV Ron Paul Meetup Group: Jared Taylor confrontation

[maltesevictorian]

This guy needs to be jared from subway and lOSE some weight. DAAAYYYAMMM BOI YOU NEEDZ tah be on tha gizzeto dizzziet.

[aprilluvsyooh]

EURO GELATO:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

[NoMercyJustCruelty]

You fellows aren't doing libertarianism any favors. You can't create your own website or blog to clarify your views? It's less work than accosting some poor schlub trying to enjoy a latte.

[DEFACTO9]

is it really? nop0e I dont think so

[thekmgirl]

Haha!! This is GREAT!!!

[CosaNostril]

I was afraid this was a Ron Paul v. Jared Taylor (editor of AmRen). I'm relieved because I admire both!

[mandocd]

great vid. get those 'freedom communications facists"

[MektRanzz]

"Racial Reality"? What on earth do you mean? Obama voted to fund the middle eastern racial War in Iraq; Ron Paul voted against it. Obama voted for to reauthorize the Patriot Act, which suppresses civil liberties to an unheard of degree; Ron Paul didn't. Obama is NOT for an ending the racial War on Drugs. Ron Paul IS. So until you can explain this issue you have about "racial reality" I suggest you do your homework on Ron Paul and stop dishing out the race card whenever it suits you.

[TehBloggaar]

He assumed that this was Jared Taylor from AMREN.

"Race Realism" statements would apply.

[juarezrt]

why should we stop the "war on drugs"?

[MektRanzz]

Because first and foremost--despite the fact that it's trajic--using drugs, whether legal or illegal, dangerous or not, is a freedom and liberty issue, plain and simple. Aside from that, the WOD is a complete failure, makes drugs more readily available, causes crime waves/corruption, and costs too much to fund. The way I see it, the government shouldn't be able to tax me because it wants to regulate through law enforcement what a bunch of drug users and/or addicts choose to do to themselves.

[MektRanzz]

(That should be "tragic" not "trajic; sorry, I'm a stickler for grammar and spellings.)

[juarezrt]

so what option does that leave us? legalize it?

i'm not sure what you mean by 'freedom and liberty issue', but if you suggest that drug use is ONLY a personal problem, you are mistaken. drug use, and by consequence, drug addiction, affects many other people beyond just the consumers.

[MektRanzz]

Decriminalize it, do not legalize it. And it IS a personal problem that we tolerate with many other substances. Excess consumption of sugar and fatty foods contribute greatly to obesity and diabetes. We don't jail people for that, do we? And what about alcohol and cigarettes? Those are regulated dangerous sometimes mind-addicting drugs, but we don't throw people in jail for their simple use. Bottom line, if a person wants to harm themselves by what they consume, that's their business.

[juarezrt]

decriminalize = legalize

Sugar & fatty foods are harmful, but not even to a comparable degree as are drugs like cocaine, amphetamines, etc. People who abuse those drugs are a danger to themselves and those around them. That's why they're illegal.

Nobody has overdosed on sugar or nicotine. Nobody breaks into peoples homes to support their sugar habit. Sugar use does not affect your job performance, or impair you when driving your car.

[MektRanzz]

Decriminalize is not legalization, its tolerance without government intervention.

Sugar is addictive, so are fatty foods, a lot of people in America can tell you. As for their being any more of a danger than illegal drugs, they may not be psychoactive, but that doesn't mean they don't pose a significant health risk (diabetes; heart disease).

Sure, people who abuse drugs MAY be a danger to themselves and others around them. But most of the time, any danger arises from prohibition (continued)

[MektRanzz]

(continued) Prohibition makes drugs expensive and unduly harsh legal punishment contributes to violence/paranoia. As for nicotine's overdose danger/addiction profile, it's not illegal and is regulated, so we can't say for certain what would happen if it was prohibited. Many addictive prescription drugs will kill you above the 1 mg level, but this hardly ever happens as each pill's contents is specifically measured.

Stop drinking the WOD Kool Aid. It's not 1980 anymore.

[MektRanzz]

(continued) Why don't you volunteer to pay the taxes for what is clearly an unconstitutional war?

(Should be "decriminalization"; "it's tolerance"; and "contents are" up above.)

[juarezrt]

1st, trying to compare sugar, fat, & nicotine to drugs of abuse is ridiculous. The reason they are illegal is because they ARE psychoactive. The effects of these drugs pose a danger to the user and those around them. THAT, is why they are illegal.

2nd, harsh punishments do contribute to violence and paranoia, but so does the drug use itself. Further, it contributes to family violence, decline in job performance, and damages, to a greater degree than sugar of fat, the mental health of the user.

[juarezrt]

3rd, smoking bans have become more commonplace, not so much because it affects the user, but because 2nd hand smoke affects others.

4th, consuming alcohol is legal, but not while driving. Why? Because it poses a danger to others. Do you see a pattern here?

The laws are there to protect those around people who use drugs, not to strip you of personal freedoms. If you lived in an island by yourself I couldn't care less what you smoked. But if you live down the street, that's a different story.

[MektRanzz]

The comparison is not ridiculous but I don't expect clarity from someone who obviously has stood by the sidelines pointing fingers at other people and saying "THAT's the problem!" Alcohol is the MOST addictive drug that I have ever come across, worse than maybe heroin, and it's still legal and for the reasons already mentioned, I wouldn't have it any other way. Drugs don't need to be psychoactive to be addictive. If you don't understand that, then I can't explain it to you. (continued)

[MektRanzz]

The fact of the matter is, many illegal drugs, like marijuana, were made illegal for reasons of racism. Don't agree? Check out the history. It's not under lock and key. Furthermore, if people start using a drug, no matter how seemingly harmless, it gets made illegal -- period. Too much money (funding) for the powers that be. A VERY good example it when MDMA was put into schedule I. Look up this story on your own. It's too long for the comments section here. (continued).

[MektRanzz]

As for your comment about living on an island, you're right, I don't. I live in the United States of America and last time I checked, we have a Constitution here. It was amended to prohibit alcohol but not no one amends anything anymore. If you want to give away your rights or pay taxes on the WOD, that's your business. Me, I live in the land of the free. Maybe you should move to an island. Or go to China.

Should be "explain why" and "example is".

[juarezrt]

if your problem is with paying taxes, join the club. but to compare sugar and unhealthy foods to psychoactive drugs is way too much of a stretch. as i stated before; the immediate effects of their use are dangerous to the user and those around him/her. why should i have to live next door to someone who abuses meth? or coke? wouldn't you think that puts me and my kids in danger? maybe YOU should look for a country where they let you use whatever you want.

[MektRanzz]

"why should i have to live next door to someone who abuses meth? or coke? wouldn't you think that puts me and my kids in danger? maybe YOU should look for a country where they let you use whatever you want."

Please. I'm a libertarian NOT a libertine. If you don't like your neighbors' habits, them move. That's your right. You shouldn't be able to govern personal habits nor vice versa. But, if your constitutional freedoms, property, and personal space are infringed, that's another matter.

[juarezrt]

of course i point the finger at other people; I DON'T USE DRUGS! nor i condone it.

alcohol is not even close to being the most addictive drug. it may be the one with the highest number of addicts, but that's because it is readily available & legal. people who start using drugs like coke, crack, & meth are much more likely to become addicted than people who consume alcohol or sugar. even after they are diagnosed as addicted, it is easier to kick alcohol than it is to kick psychoactive drugs.

[MektRanzz]

"alcohol is not even close to being the most addictive drug"

If you don't do drugs, and/or are not an alcoholic, then how do you know?

"it is easier to kick alcohol than it is to kick psychoactive drugs."

Again, how do you know?

I have a question for you: What do you think is easier? Losing fifty to a hundred pounds through diet and exercise or quitting daily and/or nightly alcohol consumption?

Furthermore, what is there more of in the US? Obese people or alcoholics?

[juarezrt]

Evidence. You don't need to participate in order to see the effects on people and to research all the statistics and figures that are available.

[MektRanzz]

What evidence? The kind that comes from a bunch of fund junkies looking to make an extra federal buck off the people? Come on. Unless you have hung around with so-called Crackheads, Meth junkies AND alcoholics, I'm inclined to think you don't know what you're talking about. The worst of all these categories are all alike in that they are troublesome. Thankfully they only represent a very minor segment of drug using society. And the statistics, BTW, often point to the futility of the WOD.

[MektRanzz]

I got an email notification that you posted this comment:

This isn't about me trying to tell another person how to live. This is about preventing a person from becoming a danger to society at large by consuming psychoactive drugs.

There are many laws and ordinances that infringe on your personal freedoms for the benefit of society as a whole.

Why can't I drive over 100mph if I feel like it? Why can't I let my yard turn into a jungle if I like it that way? The reasons are obvious.

[MektRanzz]

I don't know why it is no longer posted (maybe in trying to reply to it I accidentally pressed "Remove" which is too close to all the other buttons. Anyway, I'll simply say that the examples you gave of generally accepted infringments on freedoms are more like laws against drinking and driving, not drinking privately in your own home. That's my limit. If you are DIRECTLY harming your neighbor, then that is unacceptable. But if you're minding your own business . . . More later.

[juarezrt]

Thanks for posting it. What I meant with those examples is that we just don't get to do what we feel like if it affects other people negatively. If I speed, I pose a danger to myself and anybody who happens to be on the same street as me. An overgrown yard poses a health risk to me and my neighbors by turning into a home for pests and insects. We don't live in our own little bubbles. We live with and interact with tens, or hundreds of persons everyday. What we do affects those around us.

[MektRanzz]

Lots of things affect other people negatively. Divorce, adultery, drinking too much alcohol, eating too much, and having too much sex. Consequences to these are too obvious to mention here. But we don't throw people in jail for those kinds of mistakes. Even if we did (and I hope we never do) the punishment should fit the crime. All freedom and liberty aside, I want rapists and murders in jail, not pot heads. And WOD laws ensure many dangerous individuals in society go free.

[juarezrt]

I don't deny that government sponsored research can become a black hole for funds. But you can't deny their findings based on those assumptions. Drugs ARE addictive, and destructive. I have seen what it does to users. I have seen it in my family and friends. It has rendered them so incompetent and withdrawn in their addiction that they are untrustworthy and forget or just don't care for their families. Their addiction does not even begin to compare with my addiction to pan dulce.

[MektRanzz]

I disagree. Drugs CAN be addictive and destructive. For a great many people, they aren't. I know MANY people who have dabbled in all kind of alleged seriously addictive drugs and walked away without a scratch. For others, it was not so easy. But very VERY few have become junkies. Those that have, believe it or not, despite having creating a hardship for the people around them, are still pretty successful financially and provide for their families. And strangely, they don't even drink.

[MektRanzz]

Just to be clear, the hardest examples I presented above were not drug dealers. You would think that they would have been because of their habit. But that was not the case. A good example of why is like the person who drinks beer and not hard liquor. The reason, I think, is because he can only handle so much. In this respect, if the drugs in question were so addictive, why don't they drive people into overdoses? Surely free will -- choice -- comes into play here. Freedom to choose.

[MektRanzz]

As for your pan dulce analogy, I'd say your right: It doesn't compare. The reason is because, in my opinion, the most insidious addictions are the ones you can't even tell are killing you. While I certainly wouldn't outlaw the consumtion of certain foods if the people want them, eating food that leads to diabetes/heart disease is very much like smoking cigarrettes. You may not get high but it is VERY hard to quit. And if you end up dead from a heart attack or cancer, what's the difference?

[juarezrt]

The reason they don't quite compare is because my addiction to empanadas is not a danger to others. It doesn't cause strife within my family. It doesn't make me steal from my family in order to scrape the money to go buy some. I don't go and pawn my blender for it, or my mom's fine china. I don't go into bits of rage if I don't get my fix. And, it is nearly impossible to die of a pan dulce overdose, I'm sure.

[MektRanzz]

Also, to further clarify my point, not everyone becomes so desperate as to need drugs with them constantly nor are they willing to violate other people's space to supplement their habit. Most just want to be left alone. At least, that's been my occasional observation over the years.

And just out of curiousity, do you think that consumers of pot, peyote, or mushrooms are more dangerous to society than drinkers? If so, why & what personal observations have you made to convince you of this?

[juarezrt]

They don't need them constantly, but regularly.

Alcohol IS a dangerous drug, and if it were up to me, it would be illegal. I concede, however, that that cat is out of the bag and it will not be contained again, if it ever was.

Psychoactive drugs are not used as widely as alcohol, and their greater addictiveness and health risks are enough to merit their current legal status. That's why I think its worth fighting this war on drugs, although it should be fought smarter.

[juarezrt]

drug dealers are scum. they rely on the addictive nature of drugs to create a steady income for themselves. if drugs weren't so addictive, most people wouldn't go through the trouble and take the risk of buying them.

addicts are called that because they cannot choose to quit. i don't know if you've ever seen an addict ask for money because they need a fix, but its a sorry sight. they will go beyond their morals to get the money for it. they will steal, lie, cheat and even sell themselves for it

[juarezrt]

well good for them. but the truth is that those same types of drugs are dangerously addictive to a much higher degree than just about any other food or medicine or substance you can name. you can't say its ok to use it because it doesn't hurt everyone. it hurts so many that it should stay illegal.

[DEFACTO9]

thats naive

[rah0wa]

idiots i cant wait till you learn the hard way about racial reality i vote for obamah cause ithan you will see the truth maybe idiots

[garciajayd]

Wow as a former valley native, I'd never thought I'd see this type of cesnsorship of Ron Paul in the Valley. The monitor and the valley morning slur is nothing but garbage.

[FreedomIsPopularLLC]

Good job, four stars for confronting. I'm not criticizing, you did better than I could have done. However, if I may offer a suggestion be more aggressive next time. Make 'em sweat and run off in more in fear. They deserve it to be treated as they treat others in an expose...