Huey hates freedom :(
obviously :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifJG_oFFDK0
As much as i don't like getting involved in such delicate conversations on the web, here's my 2 cents .
I don't know who this man is sponsored by and what forces stand behind him, but imho, you either play this wild card or the US (and , unfortunately, the rest of the destabilized world that follows) will continue going the direction none of us would probably like.
He won't be elected, he's too reasonable.
I don't get how anyone can take this guy seriously. He's every bit as much a fundamentalist, ideological right-wing nutjob as the rest of them, the difference is that he's much more of an extreme libertarian.This.
Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that you've seen him say a few things that sound good to you and haven't bothered checking up on the rest.
Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that you've seen him say a few things that sound good to you and haven't bothered checking up on the rest.Isn't that exactly how people voted for Bush Jr. and Obama ?
I don't get how anyone can take this guy seriously. He's every bit as much a fundamentalist, ideological right-wing nutjob as the rest of them, the difference is that he's much more of an extreme libertarian.
Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that you've seen him say a few things that sound good to you and haven't bothered checking up on the rest.
Yeah sure if you consider reason going to pre WWII style isolationism, dropping trade agreements and hoping someone like, oh, say China doesn't snatch them up instantly is reasonable.
Fellow Americans, you don't want to know what happens when america is no longer a superpower, nor do you want to see what happens when we don't have strong trade. Isolationism is a death sentence in this day and age.
He's an honest guy and makes a good congressman, but i'd never want to see him in the presidency. Positive traits do not outweigh his absolutely ruinous platform.
The American election system is a huge problem. Until that is fixed, the whole system will remain fucked. Politicians are forced to make corporations happy to get the corporate money, but they need to dangle the social issues in front of the voters to get the votes they need to get into office.
Bernie Sanders: "The American people want action. They want their government to start representing the 99 percent, not just the top 1 percent". This applies to Democrats and Republicans alike. Start voting for our collective interests and stop being distracted by all these "pet" social issues (that only allow the politicians to divide and conquer the 99%). United we stand, divided we fall.
He is all about the free market doing its job, which is exactly the opposite of what you think his economic opinions are all about.
Yeah, the Rockefeller era was superb for the average joe.
And I like the fact that he says he's personally against women getting abortions, but recognizes that it's not his right to step in and decide what other people can do with their body. +1 for him.
As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his We the People Act.
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a Sanctity of Life Act.
You know, that's really interesting, because when I checked his campaign website, it told me this:
Said website, by the way, is where I got most of my information about his views and policies (along with debates and interviews), and I can tell you that it wouldn't cross my mind for a second to vote for him. The guy's a fruit loop.
I'm pro-life too. I think most people are pro-life. But I think my personal view shouldn't outweigh the person who's making the decision. That's the difference between people who identify themselves as pro-life, as opposed to pro-choice. I'd be labeled pro-choice, but I'm literally pro-life.
I don't see a lot of people who are pro-abortion...although there are a few out there who think that abortions are good because it's slowing the overgrowth of humans on the planet (aka the planet can't sustain the growth of humans at it's current rate).
I guess we will continue to be divided and conquered.
I aint voting for him or the nig.... Never mind. Honestly he is a Democrat in Republican body. A real republican won't vote for him. Please don't. He is a bad candidate please we don't need another Bush tainting are record.
Who, in your opininion, represents the "Republican" ideal best out of all the candidates running for office?I don't like are pool of candidates to be honest. I would suggest a Non Party runner such as John Stewart but as we all know the parties have a monopoly on are government.
Ron paul doesn't speak chinese OR play music OR have hot daughter.John Stewart or die motherfucker
Jon Huntsman 2012
Jon stewart is like 4 feet tall... You stupid, have you ever heard of a midget bein president? me no.. duhHe will be like Clinton but with more crazy positions
I've seen a few clips where Ron Paul said we should have never fought the civil war, because slavery would have gone away on it's own and it would have been more cost effective for the government to buy all the slaves(?) instead of fighting a civil war for 4 years.
He's also spoken out against the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which legally forced the South to end racial segregation in schools/workplaces/on buses etc) because it "reduced individual liberty". That fact that he's from the South himself and says stuff like this...I dunno. I don't think he's racist, but statements like that are like a dog whistle for people with traitor flag bumper stickers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOE4Ip7In0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOE4Ip7In0)
Talking about the civil war
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc)
Talking about civil rights act
http://www.ronpaul.com/who-is-ron-paul/ (http://www.ronpaul.com/who-is-ron-paul/)
Don't believe anything Ujin says. He's a Russian spy :D
Don't believe anything Ujin says. He's a Russian spy :D
"preserving personal freedom and state rights."
Let me tell you all about Jim Crow, state's rights, and "personal freedom". Well, i guess the back of the bus was free. Sometimes.
Yeah sure if you consider reason going to pre WWII style isolationism, dropping trade agreements and hoping someone like, oh, say China doesn't snatch them up instantly is reasonable.
Fellow Americans, you don't want to know what happens when america is no longer a superpower, nor do you want to see what happens when we don't have strong trade. Isolationism is a death sentence in this day and age.
He's an honest guy and makes a good congressman, but i'd never want to see him in the presidency. Positive traits do not outweigh his absolutely ruinous platform.
His Idea of airport security is allowing pilots to carry guns of their own.. Not even making this up; he thinks that terrorists would be much less likely to try and attempt to hijack a plane if the pilots can "shoot back".
How is this ridiculous?
The 9/11 hijackers had like little knives and shit. If the pilots had had guns, chances are it wouldn't have happened. We trust pilots to fly gigantic metal aircraft where they have the responsability for hundreds of lives, I don't think it's that much of a crazy idea to suggest they should be able to defend themselves from things like that.I say we rent Chuck Norris to guard the sky's.... No Rag Head will EVER FLY
How is this ridiculous?
I'd also like to point out that 2 teenagers with guns, and a crazy man at a university (Virginia Tech) have caused more terror than these supposed specially trained warriors have in recent memory. That's right, American citizens are better at terrorism against ourselves than any of our enemies so far.
With our gun rights under constant attack from our own government and the anti-gun United Nations, as well as the threat of rising crime due to our countrys economic woes, Congressman Paul believes it has never been more important that our President be 100% committed to defending our God-given right to keep and bear arms.
Well for starters because it means that every pilot would, in addition to having hundreds of thousands of hours training for their craft, would also have to be ace marksmen. I don't mean proficient, or "goes to the range once a month" i mean constant shooting drills. A plane is an incredibly enclosed space, one stray bullet is a dead passenger. I'm not sure of the overlap between qualified pilots and superb shots, but i can't imagine that it would be very high. Beyond that the pilot needs to be solely concerned with flying the plane- if a gun is needed in-flight it should be handled by a third party planted in the passengers.
How is this ridiculous?
Don't worry, Ron Paul knows the solution to that, too, and it's to have a gun in every home. Preferably several, including assault rifles.
Isn't that already the case? I always believed that everyone in America has a gun or two.
For all the huff and blunder about terrorism, there is next to none seen in america in years.
Terrorism in america is a joke used to crack down liberties and militarize police forces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFXXAuDK1Ao
Don't worry, Ron Paul knows the solution to that, too, and it's to have a gun in every home. Preferably several, including assault rifles.Yes, Ron Paul is probably wrong in saying that this would accomplish anything but more sad mass-murders, like the ones we have already seen too many of in US history (certainly compared to Europe). Even minor incidents can turn deadly very quickly when everyone is carrying firearms (I can assure you that several of my friends would not be alive today if we didn't mostly fight unarmed here in Denmark), but we have to remember that if you say A in these matters you also have to say B, and Ron Paul is for nearly full individual freedom. The thought is good, but something tells me it looks better on paper, even if no one wants a babysitter government.
I'm with ya, Ronnie! You show those bleeding hearts what's what!
49% of prison inmates nationally are African American, compared to their 13% share of theSource: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_crisisoftheyoung.pdf
overall population.
1
Nearly one in three (32%) black males in the age group 20-29 is under some form of criminal
justice supervision on any given day -- either in prison or jail, or on probation or parole.
2
As of 1995, one in fourteen (7%) adult black males was incarcerated in prison or jail on any
given day, representing a doubling of this rate from 1985. The 1995 figure for white males
was 1%.
A black male born in 1991 has a 29% chance of spending time in prison at some point in his
life. The figure for white males is 4%, and for Hispanics, 16%
Yes, Ron Paul is probably wrong in saying that this would accomplish anything but more sad mass-murders, like the ones we have already seen too many of in US history (certainly compared to Europe). Even minor incidents can turn deadly very quickly when everyone is carrying firearms (I can assure you that several of my friends would not be alive today if we didn't mostly fight unarmed here in Denmark), but we have to remember that if you say A in these matters you also have to say B, and Ron Paul is for nearly full individual freedom. The thought is good, but something tells me it looks better on paper, even if no one wants a babysitter government.
And the old libertarian thought that this threat of armed rebellion somehow enables the people to be free of government tyranny obviously forgets to take into account how modern war is waged; if the army turned on the people it would be nothing but an immense slaughter (akin to the false premise of 'our' recent terror bombing of Lybia) , we're talking tactical nukes, jets, destroyers and artillery.
Edit:
Also, in regards to the Civil War; slavery was not the main issue here, it was only a means for powerful men in the North to subdue powerful men in the South (whose wealth largely relied on slavery). And yes, of course it would have been abolished without a war, most of the rest of the World had already done so without any bloodshed whatsoever (same could be said about a few European democratic revolutions against their respective monarchies).
Not that slavery has been completely abolished even today, looking at the number of blacks imprisoned in the US (about 25% of all male blacks have been imprisoned at least once, and often more, if I remember my numbers right) or the average living conditions in black and latino ghettos. Working firebranded in the cotton field or working in a privately owned prison or working three jobs with no minimum wage limit doesn't seem that different to me. Nature versus nurture. And that is not even taking into account the modern slavery conducted by our corporations abroad.
Norway has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
Everyone in Norway carries a gun and has mandatory military training.
So basically if you pull a gun on someone for what ever reason, that person will pull a gun, plus every other bystander will pull a gun out too, and is trained how to use it.
Norway has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Everyone in Norway carries a gun and has mandatory military training.
So basically if you pull a gun on someone for what ever reason, that person will pull a gun, plus every other bystander will pull a gun out too, and is trained how to use it.
Why Norway isn't a democracy according to Fox News
Already posted this in the Scandi subforum but it fits in here perfectly:
Why Norway isn't a democracy according to Fox News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EX3km583Dw&list=FLck2ToW6_zytMkNacEfu4VQ&index=4&feature=plpp_video
visitors can't see pics , please register or loginvisitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Yeah Yugoslavia was pretty fucking great, if you were a Serb. Let me guess. You're Serbian yes?
Being semi-pacifist, I believe that concept of nationalities and states is something very primitive that belongs to the past. I don't think that various traditions and languages should perish, I think we should find a way to keep all that cultural treasure because differences are what makes life good. But yes, I'm advocating for globalization.
When Baghdad exploded under bombs, television chose to bring us fireworks. But does this distant and spectacular image tell us what is really happening on the ground, how it feels or what it means? Television has the means to take us anywhere and show us anything. It can bring us the physical experience of war with all its horrors, like no other medium, and yet the image of American war on television is disembodied, bloodless, and unreal. The invasion of Iraq was the most closely documented war ever fought. Lasting only 800 hours, it produced 20,000 hours of video, but those images were tightly controlled, producing a monolithic view of combat sanitized and controlled by the Pentagon.
Enemy Image traces the ways us television has covered war, starting with Vietnam in the 1960s and shows how the military has devised ever-improving means of ensuring the American public never again has the real face of combat beamed directly into their living rooms. Comparing footage of Vietnam, including rarely-seen material shot in North Vietnam, to coverage of Iraq and using extensive interviews with veteran war correspondents and news anchors, Mark Daniels demonstrates how television that once revealed the truth is now increasingly used to hide it.
Then I really wonder how you can hate 'mericans that genuinely, and dismiss both democracy and freedom. Democracy comes with laws. If the laws aren't in essence based on the opinion of the population and correctly applicated (corruption fighted), then it's not really a democracy (just like Lybia pretended to be one when I think we all know it wasn't). Capitalism is the economic model that can actually sustain a democracy, given that anything else leads to utter failure. There are different degrees of capitalism and this is were the interesting balance is, between merit and solidarity. What are we trying to acheive ? That's the real question.
The whole warmongering craze is a completely other thing, basically going against (true, not state driven) capitalism. But really, you should watch this BBC series about it : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-FyuuWlWQ
Sounds boring.
(Some European countries buy the same equipment though)
Btw : I don't want to imagine what BF3 would be like if the disponibility of inf/tanks/aircraft was based on prices :mrgreen: Even more infantry and anti-jet biased than now I guess.
Tbh I'd love an RTS/FPS clone like that.
You'd get a country to play around with the economy, learn what costs what, and have to pay realistic prices and realistic consequences for every decision you'd make, etcetc.
Paradox games are for you then. Although prices aren't really realistic, you can't field a uber army or be at war during ages like it's nothing.
Try this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeoGnzlFNPk
Uh uhBut as a future american soldier, you're supposed to care about these people's freedom, liberty and constitutional rights. Cause you're bringing democracy to them. Just saying.
I don't give a single fuck about those people, just saying.
Except perhaps those military dudes, but thats because I want to join the army.
Uh uh
I don't give a single fuck about those people, just saying.
Except perhaps those military dudes, but thats because I want to join the army.
And that's exactly why the army shouldn't have any role whatsoever in nation building. I could call you an ethnocentric racist cunt who believes American lives are worth more than others, but that's a given when looking at your comment.
Whether you like it or not, your mission in Iraq was to defend those people and basically play the role of exposed, sitting duck police force. A role the army is not suited for in any way. You spend trillions of dollars making a conventional army whose purpose is the application of quick and overwhelming force, bombard them with propaganda about how killing some random "sand friend" in a third world country thousands of miles away is "defending" the US, how killing innocents is a-ok if it could possibly mean one of the Chosen Ones (i.e Americans) doesn't get a splinter in his toe, and then you use them as cops.
It might sound like I'm shooting down the US military a lot, but I'm not, an effective military needs to dehumanize the enemy, there's no way around that. It's the same everywhere, the US aren't particularly more evil than any other nation would be with the same access to power, and less than most. But your leaders tried to shove a square peg in a round hole.
But as a future american soldier, you're supposed to care about these people's freedom, liberty and constitutional rights. Cause you're bringing democracy to them. Just saying.
Canadian soldier for both.
And I don't care about them not because of their races, I just... don't care.
Straight up racist dehumanization isn't openly possible in a multiracial army, but there are other ways... So, knowing what the mission over in Iraq is, why would you ever want to go there? You don't care about them. Do you come from a military family?
I like how you are arguing with him on a personal choice :rolleyes:
We want states that have armies. Not armies that have states.
Impossible. It's all about power. Humans are wired that way.
If we ever find some "intelligent" life in outer space, we won't consider it intelligent if it has no desire to completely destroy our race. We are destructive force, pretty much like viruses.
Impossible. It's all about power. Humans are wired that way.
If we ever find some "intelligent" life in outer space, we won't consider it intelligent if it has no desire to completely destroy our race. We are destructive force, pretty much like viruses.
Yes, but your ideology is pretty much a meaningless mish mash of flower power hippy bullshit and retarded idealization, with a dash of luddite. Classically schizophrenic, too. Oh I wish we could all live in peace and be happy and stuff, BUT HUMANS SUCK WE ARE HERALDS OF DESTRUCTION WE ARE VIRUSES THEY MUST ALL DIE IT IS THE ONLY WAY.
You mean if we find a highly developed Alien culture in outer space with Technology 1000times better than ours we will consider them stupid if they dont want to destroy us?
Agreed.
Our "evolution" is more technological, than anatomic.
However, if you ever go to a medieval castle, and check sometimes how small the walkways and staircases are,
(I know in real castles this served a defensive purpose, but this is true for all kinda buildings)
Or see an excavation with skeletons, and armour etc, you'll notice that the human 1000 years or more ago was a lot more smaller, and sturdier. Thanks to our technology, we don't really need to be sturdy at all. However, the increased height is something I can't really explain.
Life itself is a virus. Unchecked, it will spread and spread until it consumes everything around it, and then die. Entropy is a universal law, and nature is subject to it.
Nature doesn't have a point of view, it's a system that balances automatically, and continually. It has never been stable. There is no "good" or "bad" in nature. Even biodiversity is only "good" for us because we historically survived off of it. From nature's "point of view," it doesn't give a flying shit about species going extinct. Obsolete species going extinct and being replaced by others is one of the mechanisms used for balance, and it's always been subject to external pressures, such as climate change for example.
And ideologies don't happen in a vacuum, devoid of context. I guarantee your "organic" ideas were entirely lifted from stuff other people have said before. There are no new ideas, it's all been said before.
And no, we're not evolving pretty fast, at least in the way you mean. Evolution isn't about moving forward all the time. There are species that have found niches and have for all practical purposes ceased to evolve millions of years ago. Or massive saurian beasts who were at the top of the food chain "evolving" into birds. Evolving is a misnomer, it would be much more appropriate to say addapt. And humanity's method of addapting has ceased to be through genetic means ever since we became tool users, and free from the pressures of natural selection. We've been making our own "evolution" for a while now, yet we are genetically identical to homo sapiens a hundred thousand years ago.
Life itself is a virus. Unchecked, it will spread and spread until it consumes everything around it, and then die. Entropy is a universal law, and nature is subject to it.
Nature doesn't have a point of view, it's a system that balances automatically, and continually. It has never been stable. There is no "good" or "bad" in nature. Even biodiversity is only "good" for us because we historically survived off of it. From nature's "point of view," it doesn't give a flying shit about species going extinct. Obsolete species going extinct and being replaced by others is one of the mechanisms used for balance, and it's always been subject to external pressures, such as climate change for example.
And ideologies don't happen in a vacuum, devoid of context. I guarantee your "organic" ideas were entirely lifted from stuff other people have said before. There are no new ideas, it's all been said before.
Yeah. If, when you say nature, you mean Earth's plants and trees and the animals, then sure humans can be considered destructive. But when you think on a larger scale humans might just be the answer, "nature's" ultimate achievement. Everything up until now was just an experiment to get humans. Finally there's something that's capable of creating something in a day that took hundreds of thousands of years from nature to create. Humans can create life and change it, humans are the only ones capable of doing something to stop the world (Earth, maybe even the whole universe someday, who knows!) from ending. The only ones capable of transporting life to another planet, of solving mysteries of the universe and possibly creating their own universes in the end as well.
The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority. The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.
I doubt that. Nature has no goal, no mean and no bias.
(click to show/hide)
Ha ha so now it all turned into a philosophical discussion.
Based on what?
It's interesting how easy such a hard-won freedom is today being taken away from US citizens, many of whom are unaware that it even exists, what it means specifically, how their ancestors fought for it and how fundamental it is to an individual's rights in a modern democracy. The extent to which this has already been abused is mind-boggling.
Of course the fault mainly lies with the Media who continues to shy away from its ideal role in a democracy, that of providing unbiased and adequate reporting as a basis on which voters can make the choices that are best for as many people as possible. Were it not just a big corporate mummer's show journalists would bring to attention the issues that really mattered.
Thank God we yet have a relatively free internet as a source of information.
Because we don't need to add any intent, bias, goal or whatever to describe and predict nature.
We don't need to add any intent, bias or goal to a rat wheel either to describe and predict it. Don't mean it has none or that no one put it there.
After running in the bottom tier of candidates for several months, he narrowly won the January 2012 Iowa caucuses,[9] after endorsement by a group of prominent evangelical Christian leaders.
Also, thank you for the interesting links, Cooties, haven't read into voting fraud in the US since it was demonstrated under the Bush elections.
SCYTL is currently the worldwide leader in the Internet voting space and the acquisition of SOE Software, with its Clarity election management software suite, significantly expands SCYTL's product portfolio beyond electronic voting. Furthermore, SOE Software's strong US presence with 900 jurisdictions as customers in 26 states, including 14 state-wide customers, complements very effectively SCYTL's customer base in the United States and internationally with customers in over 20 different countries across 5 continents, including France, Spain, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Mexico, India and Australia.
BALTIMORE & TAMPA, Fla., Jan 11, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- -- SCYTL is the global leader in online voting solutions with a presence in over twenty countries
-- SOE Software is the leading software company for election management solutions in the United States
-- The combination of the two companies creates the industry leader in election software with a strong market presence worldwide
SCYTL, the global leader in secure electronic voting technologies, announced today the acquisition of 100% of SOE Software, the leading software provider of election management solutions in the United States. The integration of these two software companies creates the industry leader in the election software market with a full range of solutions covering from Internet voting to election night reporting and online pollworker training, and a strong market presence worldwide.
There's a lot more than what I just pasted though, if you really want to read into it you need to research the actual software used, who made it, who funds it and so on.
Here's a starting point:In general most people already "shut down" when having to read up on these things though, breaking out of the vicious safety bubble is very scary for the general individual, realizing that there's really no safety net nor an honest government protecting them or their liberties, just a hamster wheel of spending and consuming, and if you're lucky you can spend a bit more than you consume and that's your life.
- SCYTL Acquires SOE Software, Becoming the Leading Election Software Provider (Market Watch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/scytl-acquires-soe-software-becoming-the-leading-election-software-provider-2012-01-11))
'Inside Job' provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia. It was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.
Every time Ron Paul opens his mouth, he makes sense to me. That's quite incredible given he's on campaign in the US. I don't agree all the time though, but atleast he has a well-thought program and he actually tells what he's going to do with numbers, not just what he tries to acheive. He's not afraid of showing the complexity of politics to the voters, he doesn't consider them as brainless votes on legs unlike all the other candidates and that is really something I like.
They should start by abolishing capital punishment, what a retrograde country.
After that we could start talking about politics and external war affairs...
Yeah sure if you consider reason going to pre WWII style isolationism, dropping trade agreements and hoping someone like, oh, say China doesn't snatch them up instantly is reasonable.
Fellow Americans, you don't want to know what happens when america is no longer a superpower, nor do you want to see what happens when we don't have strong trade. Isolationism is a death sentence in this day and age.
He's an honest guy and makes a good congressman, but i'd never want to see him in the presidency. Positive traits do not outweigh his absolutely ruinous platform.
I think that's part of what the states decide individually. Some already stopped with the death sentence afaik.
One name: Anders Behring Breivik
Owned.
Theres 2 million people in Norway, you can't compare with a country like the USA. And this one guy you've got, its the worst recorded in human history. Seems he got his guns somewhere.
You're dumb, you probably think the right to own weapons is for shooting bunnies or something. If it wasn't for guns, the country might still have a monarch, like you guys do in Europe?We've had our democratic revolutions here, mind you (in some countries without violence even), and our constitutional monarchies are just that, 'constitutional' - they have no rights or power over government whatsoever. I was aware american high school- and college history curriculum was etnocentric but are you sure you haven't learned this in school (serious question, not a jape)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer
He's number 1 on there.
Well, Arganthyr, just look at Afghanistan and Vietnam. If they don't nuke these countries, they're not likely to bomb America, so I would say you are wrong, this is guerrila era and the 2ed amendment makes even more sense today than back then.It's a fair argument and we are definitely living in the guerilla age but certainly the case would be very different if the lives of those with access to nuclear armaments were suddenly endangered, as we might imagine during a revolt.
I don't mind regulated gun posession, but the idea that it's somehow a check on government tyranny is outdated and just irrelevant.
Pretty much - you'd never have enough determined citizens to put up a proper revolution. Maybe in middle east, but USA is too sophisticated for that. The masses would think everything is fine, no matter what's happening.
Fun fact is that the only live publicly transmitted counting of votes (Late night Clark County voting) - Dr. Ron Paul won BIG ->Not to mention winning as good as all preliminary straw polls..
His libertarianism aside (which is a whole discussion in itself) there's no doubt that Ron Paul is the only high-profile Western politician I know of who speaks directly and honestly about realpolitik/power politics to the voters as if they were actually a real cognitive part of the electoral process and whom so openly embraces the always unpopular but immensively important self-scutiny of the 'blessed homeland'. His perspective on issues such as US foreign policy, domestic corruption, human rights and adherence to international law, is a rare glimpse of sense and morality rarely, if ever, seen so unmarred by hypocracy in modern politics. And issues that with the current World order affects us all.
That his well-founded (and easily fact checked within any given law text, historical record etc.) arguments is an anomaly on the political scene and that a man such as he will never be president is, despite massive popular support which even Fox can't downplay entirely however much they try (see for example the 2011 Republican Presidential Debate), a testimony to the sad state of Western democracy.
I don't mind regulated gun posession, but the idea that it's somehow a check on government tyranny is outdated and just irrelevant.
The Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment is a constitutional amendment introduced by Congressman Ted Deutch of Floridas 19th district. See a section-by-section explanation of the OCCUPIED Amendment below.
THE PETITION
I support H. J. Res 90, the OCCUPIED Amendment, to amend the U.S. Constitution to make clear that corporations are not people, that corporations cannot spend money in our elections, that Congress and the States can regulate corporations, and that Congress can limit and require full disclosure of all political contributions and expenditures by all individuals and private entities. By signing my name to this petition, theoccupiedamendment.org may send me email updates on the movement to overturn Citizens United
Not sure if this has been posted yet but this is fucking amazing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifJG_oFFDK0
Ron Paul is basically Nostradamus.
"Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists." This quote is matched up to the "Arab Spring." Go to that Wikipedia entry and read "Motivations" section. The Spring was, if anything, moderates overthrowing fundamentalists and dictators, the way I see it. Sure Mubarak, for one, was our ally, but was also a crazy a-hole. I think you need a more specific example, CollectiveCheckup.an I tend to agree. Even if the arab spring has overthrown USA allies, I do not think it has been devised by the islamic fundamentalists. They very likely helped and tried to use it (and still trying), but the population elected the moderate islamic parties.
Gold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BagYRDEFvy0&feature=g-u-u&context=G21d4e19FUAAAAAAAKAA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BagYRDEFvy0&feature=g-u-u&context=G21d4e19FUAAAAAAAKAA)
With regulation it has become irrelevant, but the point was in the mindset anyhow. An armed populace thinks differently of it's rights than an unarmed one.
No, the point was that the US had no standing army and the state militias were it's first, last and only line of defence. A standing army was seen as a horrible, tyrannical way for the rulers to dominate it's own populace. And the FF hated that. They thought a country should be defended by it's citizens, not by paid mercenaries.
Oh and how does an armed populace think differently of it's rights? Not quite sure what you mean here. "Unarmed" populaces are filled with easily manipulated subvervient sheep, "armed" ones aren't? So how did the US get so many "anti-constitutional" laws then? Where was the armed popular uprising from the average man against Federal tyranny?
The closest thing was the Civil War, but how was that not a war between two governments, with two standing armies(not even going to get into the reasons for the war, really tired of revisionists going "It was about State's Rights, not Slavery!")? Did weapon ownership among civilians have ANY effect whatsoever on that war?
Right. That being said, I agree with the sentiments of the founding fathers here. Also, ownership of firearms is relevant in the realm of protection against non-government criminals. We can have a statistics/common-sense battle over that if you want.
"Fox business network is dropping three of their primetime shows, one including the top-rated show "Freedom watch" hosted by Judge Napolitano. Judge Napolitano covers topics from Occupy Wall street, to the National authorization act, he has been consistently pro-Ron Paul and anti-war."
Nessaj is a shameless lobbyist. Too bad his Illuminati pals won't be elected by proud Americans so long as the Eagle is held high and freedom remains! Say no to Ron Paul, say no to oppression and tyranny!
Chickenhawks.
Literally all the worst hawks in US history never served themselves (nor did their children).
- George S. Patton
Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.
- George S. Patton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTs6a0ORdQU
It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we could grow too fond of it.
I think it's from Lee.
Now with modern era weapons like fighter drones, stealth bombers and missiles, war isn't that terrible anymore. Or at least, there is a part of what is inarguably war, that can be showed without being horrible. Say, the day of fire over Bagdad. I remember very clearly seeing something vaguely called war on TV, but the show was more about fireworks.
Learn why (edit: former) CIA and active duty military overwhelmingly support Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-interventionism. Versions of this video have been seen by millions of Americans and it has been proven to compel nearly half of undecided voters who watch it to support Ron Paul. Please share this video with everyone you know. Support our troops. Support Ron Paul. Thank you for joining in this movement and fighting for the cause of liberty.
I appreciate all this Nessaj, I'm assuming you're not from the US but you seem to be more informed about it then those of us who live here.
Visit http://ronpaulfilm.com to order this DVD in bulk quantities!
In late 2009 we released a feature-length grassroots documentary entitled, "For Liberty: How the Ron Paul R3volution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty". Since then, we've been inundated with positive feedback from people all over the world who have viewed the film, and were inspired by Ron Paul's message of Freedom and Liberty. As independent filmmakers, we've been humbled by the response.
Soon after Ron Paul announced his new 2012 Presidential campaign on May 13th, 2011, we decided if we could shorten our original 120 minute film to just under 60 minutes, that it would make an excellent handout DVD to educate people about Ron Paul during his 2012 campaign.
We produced a 55 minute re-cut and posted it to RonPaulForums to be viewed, vetted and critiqued. Not long after, we debuted an updated version, which included a brand new 5 minute Addendum edit at the end featuring new exclusive commentary by Jack Hunter. The Addendum carries the viewer past the end of the 2008 campaign and through some of the successes Ron Paul & the Liberty Movement have had throughout 2008-2011.
With an updated subtitle, we completely re-designed the DVD's packaging and artwork into an informative literature piece in itself, and feel we've crafted the perfect Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign handout piece. The best part is people can get them at a discounted price and in bulk quantities right here on this site.
The For Liberty 2012 Re-cut is packaged in a beautiful full-color 4 panel Wallet Sleeve, with each piece individually shrink-wrapped making for the perfect handout for rallies, fairs, when going door to door with literature about Ron Paul, and more.
Anyone who views the film will definitely take a 2nd look at Ron Paul in the upcoming straw polls, caucuses, and primaries.
I'd love to be able to find some Ron Paul speeches without ridiculous soundtracks or atmospheric movie music added to it, if you got links for those.
James Williams of Matagorda County, Texas recounts a touching true story. Living in a still prejudiced Texas In 1972, his wife had a complication with her pregnancy. No doctors would care for her or deliver their bi-racial child. In fact one of the hospital nurses called the police on James.
Dr. Ron Paul was notified and took her in, delivering their stillborn baby. Because of the compassion of Dr. Ron Paul, the Williams' never received a hospital bill for the delivery.