More Ron Bashing

[paintpooper]

And? Somehow this makes a president a murderer? Last I checked, you actually had to murder somebody to be granted such a title...
(you realize that I can very easily explain why you're a murderer if we allow such a permissive definition of the term yes?)

Ok whatever....

A person of power who can grant the authority to kill or maim another human. All recent presidents have done that.

Most presidents gave the "ok" for interactions in these countries. Our government. They are directly responsible for the dropping of bombs. Yes I would call it murder.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pilots are directly responsible for the dropping of ordinance. Dropping ords in a war is still a far cry from murder. Obviously, if this is murder to you that's cool, you're entitled to that. I'm just mentioning that your definition is so permissive as to make your grandmother somebodies murderer. The reason that I mention this, is that you are of the opinion that somehow, Ron Pauls anti-war stance is some overriding good that would perhaps give us a reason to ignore the rest of Ron Paul. Well, presidents are the Commander in Cheif, and any war is going to have the president at the helm. Ron Paul would drop bombs on someone. Sure, you (and he) would make the case that it is self defense (or warranted somehow, in some way), but it's just special pleading as to what does or does not constitute murder. Conflicts you disagree with=murder, conflicts you feel are warranted=not murder. Correct me if I'm misreading you here.

[reverendjeremiah]

This is my first year supporting Paul. I was unaware of the truths.

This is my life that is in the balance, and yours and everyone elses. Dont just sling crap out without evidence.

regardless, I must commend you for your honesty.

I have posted several times that he only proposes shutting down 30% of the EPA. You are not clicking on my links then if you have not seen the proof.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ro...e-america/

That son of a BITCH!!!
Misc. savings
-------
Davis Bacon / Prevailing wages repeal. Freeze federal pay. BAN Union projects. Reduce federal work force.

Voting for this son of a bitch greedy bastard would shut my entire family down from jobs and eventually half or third my existing pay.

Dont ever ask me to vote for this greedy fuck again. Ron Paul is 100% for gutting union rights and destroying unions. Fuck him with a red hot poker in the ass!

Click on the above link. Scroll down to where is says Discretionary spending. You will then see Environmental Protection Agency 30% reduction from 2006

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

RonPaul can suck a dick

[quote[Also that link above he talks about Health care and history of it in America. [/quote]
..and how much savings do we get from "The Church will take care of them" on this list?

His anti-war stance should be enough for anyone to vote for him.

So I vote anti-war and watch every single union right fought for get banned and tossed in the trash?

The US is built on wars. All the others support wars in middle east, and foreign intervention, continuation of sanctions and trade embargo. That is exactly what we need less of, and it would help the current economic environment.
Ron Paul does not support that. In turn all those actions could bring money back to the states.

Yeah, if you want your kids working in sweat shops for $2 a day. You are FUCKED if you want me to vote for this pig.

---

It shows a person who feels compassion and empathy who cant just go around bombing other countries killing people and taking over sovereign nations. For no good reason.
In my mind, that means something, and shows something about character. Killing another human is the most immoral act a human can do, yet all our most recent presidents have been murderers.

Right. But you obviously ignore compassion and empathy for bringing sweatshops back to our country. The loss of minimum wage, the loss of years of struggle with race relations and civil rights. The loss of labor unions and the middle class..

You are either EXTREMELY ignorant to what Ron Paul will do to the middle class, or you think we are fucking stupid. Ron Paul is very clear in his plans about making class slaves and you support him.

---

And? Somehow this makes a president a murderer? Last I checked, you actually had to murder somebody to be granted such a title...
(you realize that I can very easily explain why you're a murderer if we allow such a permissive definition of the term yes?)

I thought you were also charged with murder(1) if you ordered the death of someone.

Then if that is true then Ron Paul is guilty, as he voted with the rest of Congress for the initial war on terror.

Did you vote these guys in? Hey, then you are just as guilty.

Can I go even further?

[paintpooper]

You are making assumptions about his positions without thinking them through. No one is bringing sweatshops back to the US you are conjuring without any evidence to back up those statements. Children working for 2 dollars a day? You are the delusional one. But perhaps 2 dollars will actually be worth something again, we are entering hyper-inflation now and that needs to be stopped.

You think all these things will happen based on his positions but you are just making false connections and illogical conclusions.
All Unions gone = no middle class and sweat shops.
Or
All unions gone = The people take over their work environments. Form co-ops.
Or Unions become co-ops people run labor. I think that was the intention of unions but it has become sick like everything else.

http://www.ronpaularchive.com/1997/10/re...bacon-law/

Also he said more then just "the church will take care of them". And I just showed you his plans for health care. So you are just selectively choosing information you like and don't like.

Class slaves lol. If I was in charge of my own life without government in the way things would be much better. I can take care of myself. So can you.

I'm just down with trying another option besides government taking care of everyone, and waging wars. Lets try less government and less wars and see what happens, cause the current path is not going to end well, we can all see this. Yes it is all our lives in the balance, maybe we will have to be drafted for the war on Iran(Russia,China)?

---

Pilots are directly responsible for the dropping of ordinance. Dropping ords in a war is still a far cry from murder. Obviously, if this is murder to you that's cool, you're entitled to that. I'm just mentioning that your definition is so permissive as to make your grandmother somebodies murderer. The reason that I mention this, is that you are of the opinion that somehow, Ron Pauls anti-war stance is some overriding good that would perhaps give us a reason to ignore the rest of Ron Paul. Well, presidents are the Commander in Cheif, and any war is going to have the president at the helm. Ron Paul would drop bombs on someone. Sure, you (and he) would make the case that it is self defense (or warranted somehow, in some way), but it's just special pleading as to what does or does not constitute murder. Conflicts you disagree with=murder, conflicts you feel are warranted=not murder. Correct me if I'm misreading you here.

Dropping bombs during war is murder. There is no other way to slice that. A human died, someone murdered them. An Iraqi civilian is no less human then a US citizen, so why is it ok to kill them? How is that not murder? Cause its a war zone?

What if Russia started dropping bombs on your town? Oh its just a conflict it's ok my family is dead, no one murdered them.

When the war is illegal is built on lies. Yes that is fucking murder. Name me an honest good war? There is no such thing, all war is murder.
You assume Ron Paul will drop bombs? Does this country need to be in a perpetual state of war? No it does not.
I assumed Obama would not, and he did.
Ron Paul has not been in the position to make that choice so we don't know what he would do.

All conflicts are wrong and lies, there is nothing moral about any war. I don't agree with any conflicts. Its one nation strong arming another, no good comes out of wars.

[reverendjeremiah]

[The Grand Nudger]

Dropping bombs during war is murder. There is no other way to slice that. A human died, someone murdered them. An Iraqi civilian is no less human then a US citizen, so why is it ok to kill them? How is that not murder? Cause its a war zone?

What if Russia started dropping bombs on your town? Oh its just a conflict it's ok my family is dead, no one murdered them.

When the war is illegal is built on lies. Yes that is fucking murder. Name me an honest good war? There is no such thing, all war is murder.
You assume Ron Paul will drop bombs? Does this country need to be in a perpetual state of war? No it does not.
I assumed Obama would not, and he did.
Ron Paul has not been in the position to make that choice so we don't know what he would do.

All conflicts are wrong and lies, there is nothing moral about any war. I don't agree with any conflicts. Its one nation strong arming another, no good comes out of wars.

Again, very permissive definition of murder. You're a murderer every time you go to the grocery store (and no, not the plants or the animals, but the people who die..and not by accident... in the production chain under your command decision to purchase the goods in direct opposition to laws that are supposed to prevent this). It's not OK to kill people Paint, but wars and conflicts aren't about what is okay, and legal determinations about things like murder are not about what is morally right or acceptable, only what is legal (yes I know we try to match the two as much as we can). Sometimes killing civilians during wartime is murder, check the UCMJ, sometimes it is not. Yes, war zones confer different laws Paint...

It's obviously okay to the pilot dropping the bombs isn't it, so it's a movable feast. The guy doing the dropping feels justified, the guy being dropped on feels wronged. This is a case of determining what is or is not murder based upon whether or not you agree with the conflict, which is not how we determine whether or not someone is a murderer (even if you feel it should be, and I understand why you would feel that way).

War has a definition (and laws, hilariously), murder has a legal definition, they are not the same thing. No, I don't feel that we need to be in a perpetual state of war. Yes, I assume that Ron Paul would, as president, retaliate against what we see as an aggressor. We would then be in the situation you described above about Russia bombing my town. Or are people who claim self-defense not murderers? If it's possible that Ron Paul would not retaliate "in defense" of our nation (since we aren't in a position to know what he would do) how, exactly, would that qualify him to be the commander in chief? Self defense would, at some point, include bombing their production facilities and some collateral would be expected. Fortresses went out of style hundreds of years ago because they don't work. To effectively defend yourself you have to attack the enemies assets, not just attempt to screen yourself from their attacks. The idea of America as a fortress, a non-participator in conflicts that would only act in it's defense is a line of garbage designed to lull folks who desperately want a more peaceful sort of leadership. You're being fed a line that was written specifically for you.... It's just a way of making "murder" (as you classify it) seem more palatable. It's flowery language and rhetoric over the same steaming pile of shit amigo. Speaking of which, Paul is actually on the record extolling the virtues of letters of marque and reprisal, which is essentially offering money to private citizens to kill or capture those who have been determined to be enemies of the people or state...how does that mesh with your idea of what his anti-war stance means? So he's against "wars of aggression", but for hiring mercs to enforce the law or police the waters? No thanks.

Well, conflicts aren't about what's wrong or right in most cases, and I agree, we use lies to justify things which are pretty shaky when it comes to war. It would be nice if we didn't do either of those two things. Do you see that happening? Are you sure that you are divergent enough from the rest of us that you couldn't or wouldn't do such things? I'm obviously not, as I have and would again (and sometimes miss it). All of this even though I am as much against conflict and deceit as yourself. I wouldn't go so far as to say "no good", I would say that the cost of conflict vastly outweighs the benefit in the long run, even if short term gains can be demonstrated. That's just my opinion though, there's nothing I can reference for that to call it a fact.

Again, Ron Paul is a fucking nutball. If you're clinging to Paul as a candidate because you agree with a few of his positions then you'd better be sure you're actually on the same page, and you'd better be sure that his positions in other areas don't completely outweigh whatever you agree with him on.

[paintpooper]

I don't care if it is "wartime" or not, killing is killing, illegal or not, there is no legality to kill unless it is genuine self-defense. "They may have WMD they want to use on us" Is NOT genuine Self-defense. Neither was Libya. He was NOT killing his own people. We were protecting no one but our own rich overlords. NATO is worse then the Nazi's could have ever been.

It should not be OK to the pilot, he is obviously brainwashed then just being a sheeeeeep and following orders, now it takes courage to be a pilot and fight and I commend all military personal for their valor and actions, but they are just pawns in a much bigger game. You did hear about the Canadian pilots who refused to bomb civilian populations in Libya. Those are heroes.
Why do you think most US military support Ron Paul? I don't know why? But they do.

Self-defense is different... the USA has not used self-defense any time recently I can think of. I don't even buy the Pearl Harbor story. We had sanctions on them for years, just like Iraq, Iran, and Libya. It's all the same bullshit always has been, ran by the same peoples.

[The Grand Nudger]

What I'm trying to explain Paint, is that the only way to meet what seems to be your idea of self defense is not practical, or effective, or even defense. If you feel that Ron Paul's anti-war stance would lead to a situation where the US might be able to meet this definition, you're being naive, and this isn't at all what Ron Paul is talking about when he puts forward his "anti-war" positions. Ron Paul is "anti-war" just like the rest of the candidates, which is to say that he is against wars he does not agree with, not all war.

Political doublespeak. "I'm anti war, but pro defense". Meant to drag the net across both sides of a hot button issue, which obviously, it has.

[reverendjeremiah]

I don't care if it is "wartime" or not, killing is killing, illegal or not,

Then you need to be careful not to sling the word "murder" around. Murder has a lawful definition. Killing is taking a life.

It would do you well to mind the difference in the future.

---

Rythm... please understand that you cant reason with the Paulians. I have shown over and over again to them that I am Union, and that Ron Paul is FEVERISHLY anti-union. If Paul got his ways my family would be hurt bady by lack of good paying work.

Their answer?

"You can get by...you should vote for Ron Paul"

I'm this close to putting them all on ignore.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, I breifly flirted with Paulism years ago when his yard art started popping up in S. Florida. So I guess it's a little bit of my own disappointment with what seemed to be a great candidate until I actually looked. Every candidate puts out good ad copy in someones estimation, Ron Pauls ad copy actually triggered my very first bout of political cynicism..lol. I was disappointed to find that he was not the candidate that I was initially led to believe that he was.