The Anti-Murder Candidate - Ron Paul

he still stands
he still stands Posts: 2,835
edited February 2012 in A Moving Train
I don't think I'm oversimplifying this; the best candidate for US President is Ron Paul because he will murder the least amount of people. I mean if you whittle it down, isn't that the most important thing by a landslide? And hasn't Ron Paul shown that he is the only candidate (including Obama and disregarding Gary Johnson who most people don't know about) that is seriously anti-war and will avoid a war with Iran?

It's absurd I know... but that is where the choices take us in 2012.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,860
    he still stands wrote:
    I don't think I'm oversimplifying this; the best candidate for US President is Ron Paul because he will murder the least amount of people. I mean if you whittle it down, isn't that the most important thing by a landslide? And hasn't Ron Paul shown that he is the only candidate (including Obama and disregarding Gary Johnson who most people don't know about) that is seriously anti-war and will avoid a war with Iran?

    It's absurd I know... but that is where the choices take us in 2012.
    That is an important thing- very important- but I'm a little biased toward thinking that the life of everything on the planet is the most important thing (I know...no one guessed that, right? :lol: ) so what I'd like to know more about is-- what is Paul's stance on climate change and the environment?
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,437
    Maybe we need more murder. :think:

    Scientists: 'Look, One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustainable, So How Do We Want To Do This?'

    WASHINGTON—Saying there's no way around it at this point, a coalition of scientists announced Thursday that one-third of the world population must die to prevent wide-scale depletion of the planet's resources—and that humankind needs to figure out immediately how it wants to go about killing off more than 2 billion members of its species.

    Representing multiple fields of study, including ecology, agriculture, biology, and economics, the researchers told reporters that facts are facts: Humanity has far exceeded its sustainable population size, so either one in three humans can choose how they want to die themselves, or there can be some sort of government-mandated liquidation program—but either way, people have to start dying.

    And soon, the scientists confirmed.

    "I'm just going to level with you—the earth's carrying capacity will no longer be able to keep up with population growth, and civilization will end unless large swaths of human beings are killed, so the question is: How do we want to do this?" Cambridge University ecologist Dr. Edwin Peters said. "Do we want to give everyone a number and implement a death lottery system? Incinerate the nation's children? Kill off an entire race of people? Give everyone a shotgun and let them sort it out themselves?"

    "Completely up to you," he added, explaining he and his colleagues were "open to whatever." "Unfortunately, we are well past the point of controlling overpopulation through education, birth control, and the empowerment of women. In fact, we should probably kill 300 million women right off the bat."

    ...

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-look-onethird-of-the-human-race-has-to,27166/
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    brianlux wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    I don't think I'm oversimplifying this; the best candidate for US President is Ron Paul because he will murder the least amount of people. I mean if you whittle it down, isn't that the most important thing by a landslide? And hasn't Ron Paul shown that he is the only candidate (including Obama and disregarding Gary Johnson who most people don't know about) that is seriously anti-war and will avoid a war with Iran?

    It's absurd I know... but that is where the choices take us in 2012.
    That is an important thing- very important- but I'm a little biased toward thinking that the life of everything on the planet is the most important thing (I know...no one guessed that, right? :lol: ) so what I'd like to know more about is-- what is Paul's stance on climate change and the environment?

    he's a strict Libertarian, so the market would correct itself. That said, he believe global warming is man made.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • MookiesLaw
    MookiesLaw Posts: 158
    he still stands wrote:
    I don't think I'm oversimplifying this; the best candidate for US President is Ron Paul because he will murder the least amount of people. I mean if you whittle it down, isn't that the most important thing by a landslide? And hasn't Ron Paul shown that he is the only candidate (including Obama and disregarding Gary Johnson who most people don't know about) that is seriously anti-war and will avoid a war with Iran?

    It's absurd I know... but that is where the choices take us in 2012.
    If you want to bring the troops home, end Foreign aid and believe that the War on Terror is the biggest factor contributing to the economic problems then your only logical choice is to vote Ron Paul. Finally
    we have a candidate we can get behind and support. Paul is and will remain the only logical choice for anti war voters.

    Nothing absurd about that :P
  • whygohome
    whygohome Posts: 2,305
    I dig a lot of what Ron Paul says (the stories behind the newsletters and his religion turn me off though, I must admit). But who is to say that he--as is the case with most candidates and politicians--will be able to stick to his convictions once faced with the reality of being President?
  • kenny olav
    kenny olav Posts: 3,319
    If we are talking about the 'murder' of the Taliban and other people who want to enslave and murder people who don't agree with their vile view of how the world should be, then who is the anti-murder candidate really?

    If we are talking about the 'murder' of gangs and druglords who terrorize the communities they live in, then, even though I am in favor of ending the war on drugs, I'm still not sure how Ron Paul is the anti-murder candidate.
  • MookiesLaw
    MookiesLaw Posts: 158
    kenny olav wrote:
    If we are talking about the 'murder' of the Taliban and other people who want to enslave and murder people who don't agree with their vile view of how the world should be, then who is the anti-murder candidate really?

    If we are talking about the 'murder' of gangs and druglords who terrorize the communities they live in, then, even though I am in favor of ending the war on drugs, I'm still not sure how Ron Paul is the anti-murder candidate.
    You forgot the innocent civillians murdered. Don't they rate a mention?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    he still stands wrote:
    he's a strict Libertarian, so the market would correct itself. That said, he believe global warming is man made.

    that is not true ... his most recent opinion is that it's a gov't conspiracy ...

    from his current website: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,860
    polaris_x wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    he's a strict Libertarian, so the market would correct itself. That said, he believe global warming is man made.

    that is not true ... his most recent opinion is that it's a gov't conspiracy ...

    from his current website: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/

    From this link: “The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

    If Ron Paul still believes this he can go pound sand. Will we ever have a president who truly cares about environmental issues?

    "The whole world is going insane."
    -Link Wray

    Sure feels like it to me sometimes.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    polaris_x wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    he's a strict Libertarian, so the market would correct itself. That said, he believe global warming is man made.

    that is not true ... his most recent opinion is that it's a gov't conspiracy ...

    from his current website: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/

    well, he also said
    It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

    The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

    We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

    Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

    the hoax thing I don't get, but I don't disagree with this ^^^

    but still, I think sending kids over to kill people (and die themselves) who are just defending their own land and present no danger to the Western world is a more important issue.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    brianlux wrote:
    From this link: “The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

    If Ron Paul still believes this he can go pound sand. Will we ever have a president who truly cares about environmental issues?

    "The whole world is going insane."
    -Link Wray

    Sure feels like it to me sometimes.

    yeah ... i had this discussion in another thread ... obviously, i'm a socialist so Ron Paul is far from my ideal candidate but the simple fact of the matter is: the single biggest problem in america is the corporatization of gov't and the military industrial complex is probably second only to big oil in that regard ... if ron paul can oppose the MIC - he would have done what no president before him was able to do in recent history ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    he still stands wrote:
    the hoax thing I don't get, but I don't disagree with this ^^^

    but still, I think sending kids over to kill people (and die themselves) who are just defending their own land and present no danger to the Western world is a more important issue.

    that was a 2008 quote ... his 2009 quote leaned more towards conspiracy and hoax ... :(

    having said that tho ... ron paul does say "subsidies" ... paging mikepegg44 ... hahahahaha
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    polaris_x wrote:
    brianlux wrote:
    From this link: “The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

    If Ron Paul still believes this he can go pound sand. Will we ever have a president who truly cares about environmental issues?

    "The whole world is going insane."
    -Link Wray

    Sure feels like it to me sometimes.

    yeah ... i had this discussion in another thread ... obviously, i'm a socialist so Ron Paul is far from my ideal candidate but the simple fact of the matter is: the single biggest problem in america is the corporatization of gov't and the military industrial complex is probably second only to big oil in that regard ... if ron paul can oppose the MIC - he would have done what no president before him was able to do in recent history ...

    I would argue that he would do what no president was interested in doing.

    I agree with the thread starter though...there are a lot of hypotheticals in the world, but one thing is for certain...less people will die if Ron Paul is President
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,976
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    but one thing is for certain...less people will die if Ron Paul is President

    One thing is certain, you have no idea if your "certain" statement is true. :lol:
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    cincybearcat wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    but one thing is for certain...less people will die if Ron Paul is President

    One thing is certain, you have no idea if your "certain" statement is true. :lol:

    as true as anything in politics :lol:

    but one can assume that less intervention around the world, means less drone strikes, means less collateral damage as well as less American troops and foreign troops dying on the battlefield.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    I would argue that he would do what no president was interested in doing.

    carter
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    cincybearcat wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    but one thing is for certain...less people will die if Ron Paul is President

    One thing is certain, you have no idea if your "certain" statement is true. :lol:

    he's legitimately an anti-war candidate. Obama's the pitiful tyrant. The rest are explicit tyrants.

    as far as his environmental policies, which is not as important as stopping the ritual killing of boys for wealth, he's pretty clear that the government is doing more harm than good. Ethanol was (is) an incredible failure. Subsidizing oil is absurd. Government has no business "investing" in anything. People WANT a cheap alternative fuel source... so there is a market for it, which means that the private sectore will create it because there is profit in alternative energy.

    but again, not as important as the anti-murder thing.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    he still stands wrote:
    he's legitimately an anti-war candidate. Obama's the pitiful tyrant. The rest are explicit tyrants.

    as far as his environmental policies, which is not as important as stopping the ritual killing of boys for wealth, he's pretty clear that the government is doing more harm than good. Ethanol was (is) an incredible failure. Subsidizing oil is absurd. Government has no business "investing" in anything. People WANT a cheap alternative fuel source... so there is a market for it, which means that the private sectore will create it because there is profit in alternative energy.

    but again, not as important as the anti-murder thing.

    global warming is the single biggest threat to peace and life right now and the foreseeable future ... more people will die from environmental related consequences than conflict ...

    the truth is the environment is a very weak issue for him ... the environment and all its related issues will not benefit under a ron paul administration ... i still endorse him for the reasons i put forth in this thread but the reality is that issues pertaining to the environment have more to do with death than war ...
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    polaris_x wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    he's legitimately an anti-war candidate. Obama's the pitiful tyrant. The rest are explicit tyrants.

    as far as his environmental policies, which is not as important as stopping the ritual killing of boys for wealth, he's pretty clear that the government is doing more harm than good. Ethanol was (is) an incredible failure. Subsidizing oil is absurd. Government has no business "investing" in anything. People WANT a cheap alternative fuel source... so there is a market for it, which means that the private sectore will create it because there is profit in alternative energy.

    but again, not as important as the anti-murder thing.

    global warming is the single biggest threat to peace and life right now and the foreseeable future ... more people will die from environmental related consequences than conflict ...

    the truth is the environment is a very weak issue for him ... the environment and all its related issues will not benefit under a ron paul administration ... i still endorse him for the reasons i put forth in this thread but the reality is that issues pertaining to the environment have more to do with death than war ...
    First, not arguing with you on the merits of Global warming.

    Second, if one looks strictly at property rights as the basis for most of the contract law in the US. Wouldn't my air space, my ground, my river bed, and all sorts of other things on private property be then protected?
    It certainly is something to think about...I would say that this type of openness in civil and criminal court could lead to better environmental protection, at least in the US. It certainly seems counter-intuitive, but that doesn't mean it cannot work.
    A free market =/= London in the 1800's...it isn't going to be a pollution free for-all...companies will be held accountable by individuals and groups of individuals...who knows...

    Can you explain a little more in a PM to me (no need to change the discussion here) about your stance that global warming will kill more in the next 4 years than war might? I am interested in your assertion.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Can you explain a little more in a PM to me (no need to change the discussion here) about your stance that global warming will kill more in the next 4 years than war might? I am interested in your assertion.

    pm sent ... just wanted to say tho that i never mentioned the next 4 years ...

Categories