Ron Paul has created a lot of buzz by being conservative but wanting to end our Iraq occupation. He also supports getting rid of the Federal Income Tax. That's kinda neat. Also cool? He opposes the War on Drugs.
I think he opposes it for the wrong reasons, but opposition is opposition.
But he's not that great. He wants to build a 700 mile wall on the Mexican Border, because the only immigrants we want sneaking in are Canadians and those who know how to swim. He's pro-life, but I don't think he expects other people to also be. However, he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act which would repeal the federal effects of Roe V. Wade and leave it all up to the states. He personally believes that marriage should be man and woman. He doesn't think there needs to be a federal definition as such, but that each state can go ahead and do that if it wants. Paul doesn't want federal courts hearing matters about any of those things. He opposes the Patriot Act but he also opposes Gun Control.
He supports pulling out of NATO and the UN. That scares me.
Basically, why Ron Paul isn't that great, or even great at all, I'd say, is that being a hermit doesn't work. It seems that his basic strategy would be to be that kid who shuts his eyes, puts his fingers in his ears and yells, "LA LA LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA." There's a lot of shit that government does that sucks. But there's a lot of good. If you want to abolish all programs not specifically stated in the Constitution, you get rid of great things like LI-HEAP, Federal Housing Funding, Free and Reduced School Lunch etc. etc. These are things people really need.
He's probably a nice guy. I bet he's an ideal candidate for running something small and self-sustained. Let's give him Delaware. I don't think he should be meddling in the affairs of one of the most influential, wealthy (sort of) nations of the world. Isolationism. It doesn't help anyone.
Remember when the Ents didn't want to get involved in that big war in Lord of the Rings? And then they were fucking sideswiped and taken advantage of?
Remember how the United States was Isolationist before Pearl Harbor? Germany before WWII?
I don't know, I think Isolation just gives you a chance to go crazy and be taken advantage of. It doesn't solve problems. Ron Paul won't solve our problems.
I don't think I'm making myself completely clear. He's unfit to lead, though.
8 comments:
I'm not necessarily for Gun Control, as most of the current gun control legislation is bullshit. I want responsible Americans to be able to own guns for two reasons: 1) Totalitarian governments (the reason we have the 2nd amendment is specifically to fight off asshole governments) and 2) Zombie Apocalypses. If my roommate turns into a Zombie, I want the option of not having to GO FIND a gun.
Marriage should be between a man and a woman, if your religion says so. Marriage should be defined by religions, not by state or federal governments. State and Federal governments should define civil unions, and allow couples who want to be good productive cohabiting citizens enter into civil unions with or without a marriage.
I'm all for people owning A Gun. People don't need to be owning dozens of guns. People don't need high caliber, automatic, jeep mounted guns. People have this crazy tendency to die in higher numbers the faster your gun fires.
I didn't want to come off as saying that the government should be defining marriage. Paul's government, however, would totally allow states to do so. And then other states wouldn't need to honor the marriage definitions of another state. So if two dudes married in Vermont, suddenly their status won't be recognized when they Honeymoon in Virginia Beach.
He doesn't seem to be "Live and Let Live" so much as "I'm grumpy and old and go over there."
I feel yah. I think there should be Federal support for civil unions, and make those the same across the board. But I think MARRIAGE should be up to the INDIVIDUAL or his/her religion, and have absolutely no effect on your tax status whatsoever.
Thing about guns is, there's already rules about owning high caliber, automatic, jeep mounted guns. But a lot of the gun control laws only prevent honest, educated citizens from owning and bringing guns where and how they want to, whereas if, say, a criminal wants to buy (or steal) whatever gun he wants and bring it wherever he wants (say, a "gun-free school zone" where he knows that a mass killing will be easy since none of the law-abiding citizens are allowed to have guns there), he's just gonna go ahead and do it. Allowing guns has to be an all-or-nothing thing. Nothing works for UK, Japan, etc... The size and culture of America means it's never going to be a nothing thing.
Plus, zombies, man.
Clearly the best defense against zombies would constitute a repeal on the ban on Wrist Mounted Chainsaw Appendages.
I would tend to lean toward the nothing side of the issue. I'm not convinced that Americans have a cultural need to wield firearms.
This goes back to your first post, but: It's been proven multiple times and in several different instances internationally that non-violent rebellions are effective against brutal forces. Sometimes it takes a while, but I'd rather be part of a nation that (re)won it's independence without resorting to murdering a bunch of people. And guns don't necessarily mean you're going to win against a totalitarian government, either.
There are laws against murder, too, but people do that anyway. Even the educated ones. They'd have to think about it more, in my own humble opinion, if they were not given the benefit of the distance a gun will provide.
And the number of accidental gun deaths would drop pretty staggeringly, too.
A gun is (or can be) a tool. But I find that the evil consequences far outweigh the benefits.
Although when you get right down to it, I do think that people should be able to go hunting. Food's good. Some people are poor. Bullets are cheap.
Which reminds me of Chris Rock's suggestion for gun control. Just make the bullets extremely expensive. If you're paying $1000 a bullet, you'll think twice about throwing it away.
I agree with the no guns philosophy. If we had no guns at all, and a smaller military there for our defense only who could not possibly boss us around, as many other nations do, I'd be down. I'm all for it.
Thing is: this is America. We were founded by a violent revolution. We already have a shit-ton of firearms, and we're spread out over MUCH more space than some of those other nations that go with the No Guns approach. Many Americans hunt for sport. During the Great Depression many hunted for food, and during the westward expansion, the way of the gun was the way of life. It's such a part of our culture that it's just not realistic to take it away.
Gun Control as it exists in America solely makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to own guns and take them places. I repeat: someone who is going to commit a crime and wants to do it with a gun is just going to acquire a gun illegally. They will be less likely to do so if they know their target has easy access to guns as well.
Proper education about firearms could, realistically, do much more to reduce violent gun crime and especially accidental gun deaths. My roommate thinks highschoolers should be able to take a firearms class, as like a gym credit, going over gun safety, proper storage, and actual usage. Taking all the glory and mystery out of guns, and instilling that guns they later choose to own are handled intelligently. It's the same way that good sex education is gonna do a fuck of a lot more to reduce abortions than banning abortion, and proper realistic education about the dangers of marijuana (*snicker*) and hard drugs will do a fuck of a lot more to reduce drug-related deaths than the pointless 40-billion-dollar war on drugs. I'm "conservative" on this issue for the exact same reason I'm "liberal" on abortion and drugs.
Also, chainsaws are a great close-range tactic for taking down many zombies at once, but I'd prefer they never get that close--close enough to get their zombie-virus-infected blood on me.
People who need to commit a crime with a gun will acquire it illegally just as people who "need" to murder do that illegally. Should we take away murder laws as well? Just because a law doesn't completely stop illegal activity doesn't mean it should be repealed.
Many nations were born of violence. Hell, just look at the whole bloody history of Europe. Yet the E.U. has strict laws and the U.K. has a virtual bans on guns. And it seems to be working.
If you're going to have a government it sets a really negative precedent to allow/encourage people to own guns. So until the day when the government is disbanded, we should probably work to make things groovy and not armed to the teeth.
hey man, leave the ents out of this! They did their tree-part in the end.
Also, ya'll are gay.
<3 rachel
I agree with Paul on the war and on the Unpatriotic Act.
Post a Comment