The Anti-Murder Candidate - Ron Paul
he still stands
Posts: 2,835
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.
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
0
Comments
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
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/
he's a strict Libertarian, so the market would correct itself. That said, he believe global warming is man made.
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
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.
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.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
well, he also said
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.
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 ...
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
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
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
One thing is certain, you have no idea if your "certain" statement is true.
as true as anything in politics
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.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
carter
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 ...
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.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
pm sent ... just wanted to say tho that i never mentioned the next 4 years ...
so, who is this pro-environment anti-war candidate? It seems like everyone else holds the old "fuck the environment let's kill people" point of view. I guess you could say Obama is more "pro environment" than any other candidate but I think most of what he's done has been superfluous at best and deleterious at worst.
Polaris would vote Ron Paul over Obama and has said so before. He's not going to say he's a fan of Paul, because he isn't, but he does recognize that of the field, he is the best we have. Polaris is my kind of socialist. We agree more than we disagree
well ... whoever runs for the green party would likely qualify ... but i hear ya - like i said, i endorse ron paul strictly on his foreign policy agenda ...
thing is - i don't believe that gov't is the problem ... it's the corporatization of gov't that i consider to be the root of all that ails ... every decision is made in the interests of corporations ... who's gonna change or fight that? ... no one ... but, i'd like to see Ron Paul take on the military industrial complex ... i think he will fail but i'd like to see him try ...
as for obama - i think if corporations weren't so influential and the GOP weren't completely asshats ... he could have accomplished a lot more ... but sadly - that is not the case ...
i am pretty sure most of us on here would agree more often than disagree when all is really said and done ...
I'm surprised to see you coming out for Paul-- I thought you were all about Gary Johnson, and that Paul meant, to paraphrase, "a little too much Jesus for you"?
I do like Gary Johnson as well, and if Paul doesn't get the nomination, I would likely vote for Gary if he got the LP's nomination. However, to even paint Gary as anti-war isn't totally accurate. He does believe in wars for "benevolent reasons." :? Combine that with being pro-choice, and I can't see how Gary Johnson isn't the conscience vote of the disenfranchised liberal.
actually I said Gary is "like Ron Paul... without all that Jesus nonsense." Close enough though
but yeah, I do like Gary better, it's just that most people haven't heard of him.
Gary has the LP nomination. He will be on the ballot in all 50 states as the LP candidate.
I've never heard of him championing war for any reason, not that I think he's a pacifist.
well, I guess I agree that a lot of "disenfranchised liberals" should vote for him, but he is a hard line Libertarian. It is hard for a lot of people to understand how we can coexist as a society, be environmentally responsible, or not get ass-plunged by giant corporate cock without the government to protect us.
Not to derail this thread*, but since Jason P mentioned it- what about this? The numbers vary from numerous scientists and theorists (and I'm not sure who's is most accurate or likely) but the idea that human population has reached or surpassed carrying capacity, that our numbers are far beyond sustainability, that looked at mainly from an ecological viewpoint our numbers are very likely to plummet-- this all seems quite plausible. And I wonder if our somewhat arrogant viewpoint that we can outsmart nature's cycles might actually be pushing that envelope.
Or maybe not. But just in case- might be another good reason to live more thoughtfully, give a little more, take a little less, be a little nicer to each other. Yes, easier said than done. I'm far from perfect that way.
*Sorry to sidetrack. Have we discussed the limits of human numbers in this way this elsewhere?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The difference is we don't intentionally kill civilians... I don't want to be too casual by saying "war is messy" or "you have to expect collateral damage"... but there is still an argument to be made that you will save more innocent lives by defending them against terrorists. I would also however agree that the way our wars have been fought can be considered terrorist acts themselves. Certainly the Vietnam War was a terrorist act - an act of mass murder. The vast majority of the Vietnamese supported the Viet Cong. We undermined the principle of democracy and murdered 2 million Vietnamese civilians and 60,000 of our troops in the process. The Iraq War, although it did liberate the Iraqis from a terrible dictator, was still an act of conquest, to get the Iraqi government on our side and supply oil to us on our terms. However, there is a legitimate fight against Islamist terrorists who don't discriminate when it comes to civilians.
So when Ron Paul said in South Carolina that we when bomb other countries, we should expect them to bomb us back, he should have been careful not to equate 9/11 with the actions our military have taken. I mean, OK, there was Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, and other examples... but you have to be clear about what you are comparing. In the mind of most of the people in that audience was 9/11, and I understand why they were offended by what seemed to a comparison of what their sons and daughters in the military are doing with what Al Qaeda has done.
Our foreign policy has been disastrous, especially in the Middle East. I mean, shit, look at the Carter Doctrine and the Pandora's box that that opened. Even Farmer Jimmy had it wrong!!!