so ron paul is coming...

[IamTheINDUSTRY]

should i go? and can someone give me background info. on him/ his stance on stuff compared to the other dudes....

[xllirikx]

http://vote-smart.org/

[ascitiesburn101]

Of course; Ron Paul is kickass.

[anamericangod]

He is my favorite out of the Republican candidates. I would go and listen to what he has to say, he's a really smart guy.

[1Roth4]

Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) is a constitutionalist, and one of the few Republicans that voted against the war in Iraq.

[lfdfforever]

he's really smart and he knows his history.

[trindaddy]

smart guy. dont get lippy and have to shout "dont tase me bro" though.

[TxRepresent]

The only republican I would enjoy listening to

[senatorlamb]

Ron Paul's politics aren't practical, but he's a man of principles and is at least consistent with his branch of conservatism. Anyone who speaks out for the Constitution is great, but do we really need to go back to the 1880's?

[boykosaurus]

Ron Paul is the truth...go see him

[.invisible ink.]

Ron Paul is amazing. He can hardly be considered a "Republican" in his beliefs/actions, but he's smart enough to be affiliated with that party just so he doesn't get tossed aside like most independents do. Go see him! Then go register as a Republican so you can vote for him in the primaries so he can stand some chance in hell of getting elected. He's the only candidate running that isn't trying to turn this country into a police/fascist state.

[The Revisionist]

Yes go.

[rikfrommf]

who?


just kidding.

[errricc]

yea you should go

[Justin_stacy]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Long-shot Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul raised a surprising $5 million during the past three months, capitalizing on his stance as the only anti-war [and constitutionalist] contender in the GOP field.

Paul, a Texas congressman who once ran for president as a Libertarian, also will report having $5.3 million cash on hand, campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said.

The amount places Paul well ahead of all but the Republican front-runners in the race. His fundraising for the quarter almost matches what Sen. John McCain is expected to report. His total is half the amount that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is reported to have raised.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-03-paul-funds_N.htm?csp=34

Given how much a distant underdog is raising and how little the front runners are, hopefully his voice will finally be heard within the GOP elite.

[ashesofapril234]

I hope he gets his shot, I don't tend to agree with republicans but he has a lot of interesting views, and out of the other republican candidates I believe he would do the best.

[joshy hizzle]

he IS the shit

[fromwithin]

very bad for a restriction on gun ownership? youre out of your mind brit.

[Justin_stacy]

There are no good reasons to let people own guns and as proved by Americas extortionate gun violence levels all it does it cause more crime and more deaths which the foolish think it will prevent.

One could say that your nation’s ridiculously high crime rate shows that abusive gun laws only emboldens criminals....

[Justin_stacy]

If one wanted to commit logical fallacies they could yeah.

but when one's already been presented, why not add another?

[Justin_stacy]

What it is, is purposely deceptive.

But to take that lead, it is not faulty in anyway to attribute portions of Britain’s third world-like crime rate in part on its restrictive attitude towards gun rights and the impact that has on criminal elements.

[x togepi x]

doesn't canada have a higher rate of gun ownership and less strict gun laws but a lower crime rate than the us?

[captainhampton]

doesn't canada have a higher rate of gun ownership and less strict gun laws but a lower crime rate than the us?

to me, i believe it's a culture thing. i don't think the problem is the number of gun owners, but more of the violent culture in the US. saying less guns=less violence sounds like it would work, but that isn't always the case. have i maybe found an issue where I agree with you?

[x togepi x]

yes, in the sense that i don't want gun control.

[captainhampton]

yes, in the sense that i don't want gun control.

what about more background checks, to make sure people with criminal records can't purchase guns?

[x togepi x]

i don't know.

[Justin_stacy]

No it isn't.
Bullshit.

what ever works to justify your point view......

[ArTkY_]

I like him quite a bit, you should go.

[x togepi x]

but if canada has more guns than the US and a lower gun crime rate, that would kinda prove that guns don't cause crime.

[Justin_stacy]

but if canada has more guns than the US and a lower gun crime rate, that would kinda prove that guns don't cause crime.

it doesn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

[x togepi x]

hm. i'd think my canadian friend would have been right about his country. oh well, i guess not.

[absolutecrunk]

ww1-we sent the lusitania (an american cruise liner) into hostile german waters for it to be attacked and sunken killing all american civilians on board.(there are written documents and proof that shows that germany sent us warnings even days before saying if you come here we will be forced to attack..and the day of..they gave passengers a piece of paper saying "warning you come onto this ship at your own risk..bla bla your fucked").automatically leaving us to march our way right into the war..which we had no right in being in

i know that it's beyond the point, but 800 people survived.

[thetrueblood]

Sure that isn't a fool proof correlation and I'm sure you'll clutch at straws like you always do but to any objective reader of that paragraph the obvious conclusion is that guns cause death.

just because you outlaw guns it's not going to stop people in this country from dying from them. we outlaw drugs and that doesn't stop any 12 year old kid from having access to them. The right to bear arms is in our bill of rights, once you take one away it is setting precedent to further strip American's from the fundamentals the country was established upon. Personally, I want the right to defend my home and my self with a lethal weapon because I am not naive enough to think that just because they are outlawed it will deter criminals from getting them, thus putting me in danger. Furthermore, your trying to compare different society's and guns with your statistics. All your showing is that American's are more violent and we have easier access to gun. Outlawing guns isn't going to make American society less violent. Guns have been legal since the country was founded and we haven't always had an excessive gun violence problem. I believe this goes to show our society in general has become more violent and i would even move to say it's because of a decrease in gun ownership. When everyone is carrying a gun it puts us more in a state of martial law which deters gun crimes. I'm not saying everyone should carry a gun (but they should have the right if they desire).

[looksthatkillbn]

lol ron paul has people at our school all the time. frankly it's really funny.

[thetrueblood]

Actually outlawing drygs does stop A LOT of people from doing it especially the hard drugs. Alcohol and Tabbacco are consumed in frar greater numbers than weed yet weed is not really any more dangerous so it's fair to attribute this to cannabis being illegal and alcohol not being.
you're missing the point. it may stop a lot of people from doing it, but marijuana, cocaine, LSD are still littered all over my city. Outlawing guns isn't going to get rid of them. Most of the gun crimes aren't committed by hunting rifles in an act of rage. we have a problem with violent crimes and a disregard for the law in general.



That's a grossly warped account and it definately makes them a lot harder to come by than if they were legal.

true. but i'm sure most gangs would still find access to them and i would be left a defenseless law abider.



Wasn't the country also established upon the right to own slaves and that women were inferior to men?
no. the right to bear arms was specifically added to our constitution in the bill of rights. it is not in the same category of what was the social norm at the time. additionally, the right to bear arms was established so the citizens could take up arms against an overbearing government if it no longer worked for it citizens. I don't think there is any responsible way to ban guns and remove the ones that are already owned.



Except it clearly does when you look at the UK gun crime stats.



No it shows that it can not cause excessive crime in the right society such as Canada or Switzerland. Cultures with the wrong society such as South Africa and the US obviously can't handle owning guns (why would you want them anyway?) and so they should be banned for the safety of the public.



clearly you're putting the US society on a different level than the UK and other countries, so comparing the US stats to the UK is insignificant.




Exactly. Youy can't make America less violent but you can take away the one thing it is worst for them to be violent with.

and then what? ban knives?



So what? You do have a problem and seen as changing the culture is extremely difficult the best choice is to outlaw guns. Basically the current attitude is we can't be bother fix this cause it's difficult.


you don't understand the backlash a gun ban would cause.


What a ridiculous fallacy.

in your opinion.



No what it does is turn a normal argument into a western. Wouldn't it jsut be best if no-one had guns?

and what's wrong with that? it would be best if no one has guns. there's no logical way to disarm America and enforce a no gun policy. Should we disarm our police force also? Maybe in your fairytale world no one will have guns, but that won't hold up in a normal argument.

[Love As Arson]

If America's culture does not change, and guns are banned, then the underlying attitudes, which breed violence, will merely manifest themselves in a new manner. There must be an effort to transform our culture; for it is the same culture that breeds violence at home and war abroad. Further, I do not think it is nineteenth century thinking to be armed against the state, particularly after the invasive policies issued by this administration.

[x togepi x]

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f298/chumscrubber187/chomsky.jpg
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f298/chumscrubber187/douglass.jpg
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f298/chumscrubber187/einstien.jpg
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f298/chumscrubber187/lincoln.jpg
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f298/chumscrubber187/safety.jpg
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f298/chumscrubber187/malcolm.jpg

Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.
[info][add][mail]
John F. Kennedy

The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use - of how to get men of power to live for the public rather than off the public.
[info][add][mail]
Robert F. Kennedy,

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
-Gandhi

Considering Ron Paul's opposition to gay rights and his stance on immigration (which is as statist as the republicans he criticizes), I have a feeling that a lot of these people you're invoking in his name wouldn't vote for him (if able).

[x togepi x]

Who says that banning guns won't initiate some kind of change in a less violent direction.

You can't prove that it would. If you want to make this argument, make it, but you have to provide some support for this conclusion. Merely positing "what if..." isn't going to do any good. I think banning weapons is a simplistic solution to a complicated problem. Considering the fact that bombs can be made out of household materials that can never be banned, I don't think the problem will be solved by banning guns, especially when there's already a black market for these weapons right now, which is only going to grow post-weapons ban. I mean, any weapons ban is going to get struck down by the courts anyway, so it's a waste of time.

I don't like violence as much as the next person, but letting the state have monopoly on arms is a horrible idea. If I can't trust the federal government to protect my civil liberties, why exactly should I give them this power in the name of safety (which is exactly the same kind of logic that was used to pass the PATRIOT act).

[thetrueblood]

in the end, you're arguing a philosophical point of lower crime in a perfect world without guns.

Why in the world would we want to model the UK anyway?

Over the last 10 years you have had an increase in gun crime. Switzerland has slack gun standards and 14 percent of homes have assault rifles. They had a lower gun crime rate than you.

Gun crimes are committed by criminals and these criminals aren't going to observe the law. the laws just embolden criminals with the knowledge that the general public can not protect itself.

[x togepi x]

He isn't change from control. His stance on immigration is just as statist as the "big runners" that you're condemning, as well as going to cause cold blooded emotionless killing (only not at the barrel of a gun, but through immigration policy.) He voted for a bill that not only allows states to regulate sex practices, but also makes it impossible for federal courts to hear about cases about sex, which means that if he had his way, crazy conservative states could legally ban all sex that isn't married couples doing it in the missionary position.

Libertarians rely on the States Rights doctrine, which is inherently more oppressive than the federal government. Wide sweeping increases in civil rights have always come from the top down. The states always try to be more restrictive than the federal government, just look at the desegregation battles or for Jim Crow.

don't confuse libertarianism with no control. instead of federal control, Paul wants individual states as well as corporate control. he does nothing to solve for the inherent power that the markets have over individuals, which is a lot worse than State power, in these times. Sure, we can complain about citizens being detained in gitmo, but that pales in comparison to the numbers of people being degraded by free market politics all over the world (and within the US). Paul's ideology says to ignore them.

nevermind the fact that if he were elected, he'd instantly become a lame duck, since, as you say, the entire government is corrupt. congress would keep sending him the same old bills and he'd veto them, getting us nowhere.

[jsteil]

First and foremost you need to see Dr. Paul and hear what he has to say on these matters. I believe that if you would have done a bit more research you would have found better answers.

About gun control, Paul supports the constitution and therefore believes in the rights of the second amendment. Paul also stats many reasons on how the second amendment was supposed to be interpreted. Guns were intended just incase of a government overthrow among other things and really weren’t interpreted for using guns to hunt as an example. To me it comes down to guns don’t kill people, people kill people. There needs to be strict gun control, but everyone has the right to bare arms and to protect themselves. Paul says that police can’t protect the people. That there are more guns in urban neighborhoods and police can’t stop people from committing crimes, but people have a right to defend themselves, and the laws should be enforced.

I listened to a radio interview he was doing after the Christian Coalition Debate and he was asked about his response to “don’t ask, don’t tell” as a decent policy and why as a Christian he doesn’t ban gays and all bad hetero military men. His answer was that as an OBGYN he sees it to be more complicated issue and can’t give a simple answer to a complex issue such as being gay as right or wrong. With the issue of it being in the military he just wants a good moral military and doesn’t care if they are gay or straight. He tends to vote yes and no on different issues supporting gay rights.

[absolutecrunk]

timberwolf <3 ellipses.


i don't mean to intrude, just thought i'd make an observation.

[Justin_stacy]

since youve countlessly studied them..than explain to me why prescott bush helped hitler fund his plan..making profit off of the dead prisoners...

explain how karl roves grandfather..karl heinz roverer helped build hitlers concentration camps

and explain how gustav "arnold" shwarzeneggers father was a high ranking S.S. officer?

He was never apart of the ss, and his ranking within the sa wasn't "high" and was basically required in his profession. He was cleared of any involvement in war crimes by an ally war commission and allowed to keep his job as police office, after the war.

Getting simple facts straight is very important when attempting to make a point.....Fail at this easy step and it discredits everything else you have to say.

[Rock]

This is kind of embarassing, but I just thought I'd make mention that the first 10 or so times I saw that Ron Paul was a presidential candidate, in my mind I thought "Ru Paul." I was really surprised that s/he was running for president.

[Rock]

since youve countlessly studied them..than explain to me why prescott bush helped hitler fund his plan..making profit off of the dead prisoners...

explain how karl roves grandfather..karl heinz roverer helped build hitlers concentration camps

and explain how gustav "arnold" shwarzeneggers father was a high ranking S.S. officer?
This dude is like Mr. Conspiracy. I swear.

[ascitiesburn101]

haha. on the way downtown today i saw graffiti that had the following in bold black letters..

HABEUS CORPUS

1787 - 2006
R.I.P.

twas a good laugh.

I like the ideas of mike gravel a little bit more than ron paul, but he is an excellent candidate as well. hopefully he beats out mitt mormon and tranny giuliani (sorry for the bad nicknames).

[Nevuk]

Gravel and Kucinich are the two truly progressive candidates, with Paul being something of a compromise. Yes, he is against federal level abortion, but he has also voted for the right to transport between states to have an abortion performed. The running argument I've heard from supporters is that Abortion is a red herring issue, only brought up to distract from other issues. How many of our recent presidents have been anti-abortion and nothing has happened? The only pressing threat he has towards it would be appointing an anti-abortionist supreme court judge. And with his libertarian views... anyone he appoints would be less likely than Bush's by a good deal.

As for the illegal immigration issues - yep, I differ from his opinion on it. Paul is probably the biggest threat to any of the democratic candidates, canceling out the war issue, taking it further than some of them are willing.

Edit: I've been studying fallacies lately...

[ascitiesburn101]

I like Mitt Mormon.
You live in the UK, and I'm Canadian. Come on, Americans.


Regardless, I don't agree with the majority of his views. In my opinion, he seems the closest to bush/cheney in the candidacy and that is not a good thing.

[boykosaurus]

I think the problem is that most of the republican candidates are politicizing the terror issue. If they weren't being immature assholes and pigeonholing the dems as irresponsible politicians that want to give up the US to terrorism, I'd probably vote for Guiliani or Romney...Paul seems to be the only one not doing this and I respect him for that

[asmolitor]

people on campus here spray painted a bunch of ron paul rhetoric. not sidewalk chalk, but permanent graffiti.

i'd like to look back on that in the future, as paul 08 should look worse than, say, mondale 84.