The Anti-Murder Candidate - Ron Paul

2»

Comments

  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    polaris_x wrote:
    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 ...

    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.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,828
    he still stands wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    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 ...

    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 :D
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    he still stands wrote:
    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.

    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 ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    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 :D

    :lol:

    i am pretty sure most of us on here would agree more often than disagree when all is really said and done ...
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,828
    he still stands wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    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 ...

    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.

    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.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    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 :D

    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.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,861
    Jason P wrote:
    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?'

    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?
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • kenny olav
    kenny olav Posts: 3,319
    MookiesLaw wrote:
    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?

    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.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    but the people we're bombing now, and the people we've bombed and killed for the past 10 years, had nothing to do with 9/11. we've killed everyone that had anything to do with it (which can be justified... I'm no pacifist). So why are we still there killing people? I'd fight back too if I a foreign army was in my backyard.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • whygohome
    whygohome Posts: 2,305
    he still stands wrote:
    but the people we're bombing now, and the people we've bombed and killed for the past 10 years, had nothing to do with 9/11. we've killed everyone that had anything to do with it (which can be justified... I'm no pacifist). So why are we still there killing people? I'd fight back too if I a foreign army was in my backyard.

    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!!!

Categories