For no reason I can directly identify, i don’t like Ron Paul
This entry was posted
on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 2:42 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:02 am
He’s pro-life.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Because you probably fall in to one or more of these categories:
-You believe that the government has a role to play in deciding how people live their lives
-You believe people are not responsible for their own and each other’s welfare… that the government is
-you like to be fed rosy stories from charismatic orators 😉
One of these days I may write up why I’m supporting Ron Paul as much as I am…
December 20th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Okay.
1) I don’t believe that government should decide how people live their lives except when group A is living their lives in a way that hurts group B.
2) I feel that was worded to be deliberately offensive.
3) I would like to be fed the truth. This lets out the american political process altogeather.
I have the following problems with Ron Paul:
1) He’s pro-life.
2) He’s a libertarian. I do believe in limiting government power, but I am not a big fan of capitalism and pretty much all libertarians are.
3) He’s another white male and I’m heartily sick of white males in political power in america
4) His web site paints him as someone who thinks they are close to perfection. I really don’t want someone like that running the country.
5) He’s against gun control. I’m against guns.
I could probably come up with another 15 or so reasons by learning more about the guy.. but I don’t feel myself warming up to him at all. Apparently I’m only a libertarian about electronic freedoms, drug laws, compulsory education, and using my tax dollars to fund wars.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Guns are actually good. It’s counter-intuitive. Canada has much higher ownership than we, yet way lower murder. Britain has something like 1% of the guns but still 50% of the murder. It’s the ultimate check and balance. And the ultimate freedom is being able to use deadly force when necessary to defend your life, liberty, and family. The government that doesn’t let you defend yourself is the one is deciding how you live (die) your life…. Though I agree with everything else you said. Force is neutral, like a drug. Can be used for good or bad. Bad apples shouldn’t spoil it for the rest. Especially when 100% of prohibitions fail, and guns are no different.
🙂
December 20th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Actually, the ultimate freedom.. in my book.. is living in a universe where deadly force is never necessary nor possible. I consider it a defect in the universe that anyone can hurt me .. or you.. or anyone .. without their permission.
Given the current limits, I don’t actually have a useful solution to propose. If we outlaw guns now, there will still be hundreds of thousands of people running around killing using them, and responsible owners won’t be able to get them. If we stop making them, there are still millions of them out there in circulation. Since changing the shape of the universe is probably beyond humanity, at least this century, I guess I will sit in my corner and whine and try to pick the lesser of two evils – which I think is restricting the amount of firepower people can buy.
(It occasionally amuses me to think about how I bought a 100W argon gas laser on the open market. I sold it to buy my 500mW blue DPSS laser, which is far more useful for parties and the like.. but that thing would have made one hell of a weapon. Aside from being a little difficult to aim and needing three-phase power… kind of limits the portability factor some. But I blew a rather impressive hole in my garage door with it, and the power was throttled way back and there was a 3/4″ plywood target in between output aperture and door, and it was only on for ~20 seconds. Forget gun control – what are we gonna do when our neighbors go postal with beam weapons?)
December 20th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
p.s. we drove by the old house and I was amused to notice that the landlord had replaced the garage door.. amused and slightly guilty. The hole wasn’t *that* big – maybe the size of a pinkie.. I’m *really* glad there was no one walking around on the other side. That incident was the last time I ever powered the unit up – I don’t really know enough about laser safety to play with one capable of burning holes in things.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 am
Clearly you have demonstrated the need to outlaw lasers!
🙂
RE: Ron Paul
First off… I don’t think Ron Paul is the choice for everyone.. and you would be included in that group… I in no way intended to be offensive… anyways, you stated that you did not know why you didn’t like Ron Paul so I offered suggestions.. The most disturbing thing people find about Ron Paul is that he believes in letting people ultimately fail which is a really scary thing when you really get down to it…. having said all that I guess I’ll respond to your comment…
Re: RP is Pro-Life
He is actually very prolife, which is a viewpoint that bothers me about him, but he believes that the it’s the state’s responsibility to decide what to do… which is not ideal, but workable..
Re: RP is Libertarian…
so yea.. if you do not believe in free market then Ron Paul is clearly not a good choice or you 😉
Re: RP is white and nerdy^H^H^H^H^Hmale…
I don’t tend to judge people by their color or sex the same way you do 😉
Re: RP website…
I don’t think the website portrays him as perfect… just the most pro liberty (economic and social) candidate out there…
Re: RP gun control:
Yet another reason for you not to support Ron Paul 😉
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:47 am
Yea, the problem of taking away all use of force from the universe is not possible, period. Unless you want to mentally retard everyone to the point where beings can no longer understand physics, chemistry, and politics, there will always be a use of force. In fact, any tranquility and freedom you experience in your life today is directly attributable to deadly force. Without it, there would be anarchy — even MORE deadly force. Living creatures are all animals.
Anyway, you might want to try Connect2Elect, it lets you rank issues in several categories on a 0-100 scale of how much you care about them, presenting you with a graph of results. You have to mouseover the candidates to see who they are (it’s a Flash site), but here’s a screenshot of my results so you can get a gist of what it looks like:
http://www.acm.vt.edu/~clint/download/imagedump/connect2elect.jpg
Ron Paul is the red dot that’s on the opposite of everyone else. People are refreshed by his novelty, but he’s not the answer. I trust 0 republicans and 0 democrats.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I don’t agree. All you need to remove force from the universe is matrixworld with file permissions. If you can’t even talk to me unless I’ve set my talkable bit, and can’t hit me unless I’ve set my hittable bit, force has been removed.
I understand that implimenting this requires some radical changes to the universe at large that humans may not be capable of agreeing on, much less doing, but it would be possible to make a universe in which there was no option of using force on another without their consent.
I’m also not a big fan of this universe’s ‘all life lives at the expense of other life’ design.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Well, hate to break the news to you, but politics are based on THIS universe. 😛
funny stuff tho 🙂
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
(my chuckle bit is now set to 1)
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Besides, someone smart would come in and hack the system.
Are you The One??? 🙂
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
*snickers*
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Just don’t listen to them when they tell you to follow the white rabbit… they got long fangs!
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
But if you do… make sure to take The Holy Hand-Grenade.