I like Ron Paul's anti-interventionism as well as his wish to defang government. I'd read a few pieces by him on Counterpunch, where his iconoclasm surprisingly (for a Texas Republican) fit in with the left crowd there, and later began to find him on Antiwar.com too. Rare for an official, he's lucid and sane.

His fearlessness in the debates against the security state rabble was impressive, as was Mike Gravel's against his complacent peers in the Dem race. The common thread here is resistance against a harmful, failed status quo that the opportunistic candidates gladly support.

Along with Paul Craig Roberts, the ex-Reaganite who writes so well about our economic and military disasters, you could say Ron Paul is a beacon on the right (and that's a side of the political spectrum I usually abhor).

If he or she was tried and convicted then yes I could. If it was later found that they were really innocent, yea I'd probably feel bad for the family. I could still do it though. I'm sure my actions in other countries has caused the deaths of innocent people. They've also caused the deaths of very bad people, it comes with the job.

Fair enough.

Personally I couldn't be that cavalier if the person was later found to be innocent. But that's just me; I don't expect anyone else to share my sentiments.

I find it interesting, though, that other than that reply you tend to evade the issue of innocents being incarcerated, much less executed. Of course, it would make almost anyone uncomfortable, I imagine. Very sad thing IMO that it's happened, and will continue to happen. To say the least.

I'm probably not the best person to ask these questions. I help teach a self defense class for when things get pretty ugly. We use real (unloaded) weapons and train to pull the trigger if necessary. We don't use training weapons, because just that, they aren't real, they don't look real. I've seen trained military "self defense" trainers totally freak out and forget their training when looking into a real gun barrel. I've seen law enforcement people get "killed" in class because their training prevents them from putting their fingers on the trigger. So yea, if I had to, I'll pull the trigger, but there's going to have to be a pretty good reason for it.

I wasn't trying to evade the fact that good people go to jail, or executed. It sucks that it happens, but like I said there has to be consequences. Putting murderers in a "time out" isn't good enough in my opinion. It sure as hell ain't working for the kids I see every day. I'm going to make a guess that you're either around my age or maybe a bit older. Remember when we were kids, you got in trouble in school, you went to the principals office. In there he'd introduce you to the paddle. Then they would call your parents, and it would suck worse once you got home. Whatever you did, you probably wouldn't do it a second time, sure as hell wouldn't do it a third. Now we can't touch them and they know it. I've seen kids talk to teachers with language George Carlin would wince to. What do they get? A time out. Big freaking deal, and that's what the kids think too. So now they grow up, kill some dude at the local quicky mart for a couple hundred bucks. What do they get? 10-20 years in prison, and most likely get paroled in 10. A freaking time out. I have a friend that's a sexual predator counselor at the local youth facility, that's right folks, we've got 6th graders that are rapists. His father in law is a guard at the prison across the street. So I get to hear all the "good" stories about what goes on inside. That's probably not helping my look on life either. That's the last of my rant, and comments for this thread. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind either, just throwing out my thoughts. I see, and understand your point as well.

I don't have any problems with self defense, or anyone teaching it. My stepdad is a judo blackbelt and expert marksman and made sure I learned how to take care of myself. I'm a fair shot with a .38 pistol and 30-06 rifle, so I'm not sure how that factors in...

There's an old maxim, which I heavily subscribe to: "it's better to let ten guilty people go free than one innocent person go to jail". Why should there be irreparable "consequences" for an innocent person who is wrongly accused of murder?

But do you think capital punishment is really going to work as a deterrent either? Kids in gangs risk getting shot by each other, why are they going to be dissuaded from killing each other/others by the state wanting to kill them too?

I'll happily bow to your greater experience here; I've got the benefit of living in a country with relatively low murder/gun crime rates, and no death penalty.

Cheers,

Andrew

Your last statements made me think of something, Andrew. The US seems to suffer a social psychosis, one that manifests in certain crimes which occur here at higher rates than some other countries, even ones deemed "less civilized" (on the converse, I hope no one drags countries like Sudan into the argument). Perhaps its the very concept of a State that has no problems murdering its citizens that contributes to this... a fatalism that maybe doesn't cause but sure contributes toward "suicide by cop" and the other gang activities you mention. I wonder if any sociologists have looked into that, to see if the absence of a death penalty can contribute toward better overall attitudes among the citizenry. I'm betting the concept of a State that willingly kills its citizens weighs on our subconscious mind at the very least... and has some negative effects other than those intended.

Whee! A political debate! NOW we're off-topic!

This is cheap mudslinging Drewv. Either support it with facts or stick it back where you pulled it from.

Ron Paul on racism:

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”

Your assertion that he is 'associated' with the Aryan nation is a) baseless and b) guilt by association. He has also been 'associated' with 9/11 'truthers' because some of them attended a speech he held and later asked him some questions.

Better luck next time!

Ah, but Roe v. Wade already denies that 'right' in the last trimester!

The libertarian stance hinges entirely upon the point in time at which you want to grant the right to life to the tissue/fetus/baby. As soon as you recognize it as a human, the right to life and the non-agression principle kicks-in.

Dr. Paul is an Ob/Gyn, meaning you have to grant him full medical expertise on the subject. As a protestant christian, he personally opposes abortion, but as a constitutional scholar, he realizes that the constitution does not clearly define the point at which life begins.

Because of this, he argues that the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to determine where the mother's right to privacy and self-determination ends and where the rights of the offspring begins. Seen in this light, Roe vs. Wade overstepped the constitutional authority of the SCOTUS.

Far from being a dogmatist or a fringe candidate on the abortion issue, his position is actually the pragmatic one; namely that because there is no national consensus on where life begins and because the constitution does not explicitly define that point, or grant that decision-making power to the Federal Government, it is a matter to be left to the States, as per the 10th Amendment! (All powers not granted to the Federal Government are left to states and individuals)

I am not aware of Dr. Paul advocating that the Federal Government outlaw this. Can you cite legislation or quotes? Even if he did, it would not come close to being a deal-breaker for me, because his Big Issues are so much, much more important.

The Constitution does not authorize Federal taxes to be spent on religious institutions or initiatives. What evidence is there that Dr. Paul has supported this?

Dr. Paul *has* promoted tax credits as a way to allow individuals to reduce their Federal Income Tax burden in some cases. His reasoning here is that the FIT on wages is of debatable legality. He has also proposed bills to grant tax breaks to donors of embryonic stem cells from placentas or spontaneous abortions. You can look at this as a subsidy if you want, but he sees it as a way to give people a choice to retain some of the money they rightfully should be able to keep anyway.

Agree 100% I do wish to clear up misunderstandings though. Ron Paul is moving beyond the stage where they ignore him and moving into the stage where they begin to ridicule him. Insofar as I can help to clear up distortions or misconceptions, I'm all too happy to do-so.

Cheers,

Arnim, I once read a speech by Ron Paul defending Bush's faith-based funding initiative. IIRC he voted for it also (I'd have to check to be sure).

When I was first introduced to Paul, I liked what I read and heard. My disillusionment occurred as I dug a little deeper, especially into his stance on religious issues. But I have no intention of even trying to disabuse anyone of their support for the gentleman. There just seems to be this "Ron Paul is god" movement whose extreme proponents go nuts if anyone points out flaws (not saying you did that-- your comments are very sober). In many ways he sure beats the typical politician, though, I'll give him that!