How could I've missed this guy before? He seems to be a very interesting person to me. Basically, this is the real politician - with long term thinking.
I think he has some good ideas and some bad ideas.
He has IDEAS. Many other politicians' thinking is very short term. They do not have ideas, they think in terms of short term regulations, most notably - banning whatever stands in a way. A problem? No problem, just make everything that created it illegal and problem solved.
A Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul) about him.
Nothing new or extraordinary about his politics --- take the things done
the old way and do it the other way around.
Perhaps you could be more specific Louigi, as I fail to see anything revolutionary.
I have two examples:
1. dumping the patriot act: good idea.
2. leaving the UN: bad idea.
EDIT: examples are in context of my first post, not the second one which mainly is a question.
He seems like an interesting character.
"Paul advocates ending the war on drugs and supports decriminalization of marijuana at the federal level."
This sounds very positive to me. This would allow society to re-allocate resources towards treatment of addict instead of overpopulating the prison-system with small time users of illegal narcotics.
I'm not that interested in person with ideas. So far any revolution by persons has ended up in a deception.
Of course the 'war on drugs' is a very stupid one.
Especially when it's clear that resources of the see IA are funded by trade in coke or other harddrugs.
Of course cannabis use should be legal, but that's an open door.
"I'm not that interested in person with ideas. So far any revolution by persons has ended up in a deception."
I think there is a whole lot of truth to this statement.
QuoteI'm not that interested in person with ideas. So far any revolution by persons has ended up in a deception.
This is a very confusing statement.
If one has ideas, it doesn't mean those are revolutionary ideas. In fact, your statement is two not connected different statements. And the second one is pretty arguable, though in most cases I would believe it to be true.
Most difference between short term solutions and long term solutions is that long term solutions need one to extend his thinking a bit. Short term solutions are easy to follow and they usually involve simple actions, usually based on superficial conclusions (like the infamous "if people have more guns there'll be more violence") and usually involves just banning something and proclaiming it illegal. This kind of thinking is more like a temporary patch.
And anyway - if you are not interested in person with ideas, then who are you interested in?
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"usually based on superficial conclusions (like the infamous "if people have more guns there'll be more violence") and usually involves just banning something and proclaiming it illegal. This kind of thinking is more like a temporary patch.
I completely disagree with that statement. To me it seems that people buying guns to protect themselves is short term thinking.
About decriminalization of marijuana at a federal level, I think (from what little I've read) that he's basically against anything being decided at a federal level.
Sorry, Louigi, you indeed didn't mention the term "revolutionary".
Having ideas is fine of course. It's often the 'followers' of the ideas who start to make a mess.
Making interpretations that suits them personally well.
Then you get a list of 'forbidden' things, etc.
If there should be a list like that, smoking some plant is not a priority, but landmines are.
I'm interested in people with love, compassion, dignity and who are practising freedom of thought.
Quotehe's basically against anything being decided at a federal level.
There is much more to this phrase than g even remotely suspects;)
It describes very well quite a diverse set of human behaviors in society.
QuoteHaving ideas is fine of course.
Actually, there is no ideas. There is "
ok, marijuana is illegal? Make it
legal! Is there a tax? Let's abolish the tax!" He only negates what already
exists, he does not create anything.
QuoteIt's often the 'followers' of the ideas who start to make a mess.
Making interpretations that suits them personally well.
That is actually how everyone acts in any given circumstances.
QuoteHaving ideas is fine of course. It's often the 'followers' of the ideas who start to make a mess.
Yep, this is usually the case.
I guess the only way to keep a balance is to always concentrate on keeping a balance rather than trying to not make mistakes.
QuoteI completely disagree with that statement. To me it seems that people buying guns to protect themselves is short term thinking.
Reality shows that it is not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA
Some more extensive thinking also shows that it is a better solution. Just consider this carefully and you'll see for yourself.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA
Some more extensive thinking also shows that it is a better solution. Just consider this carefully and you'll see for yourself.
The USA has the highest rate of people killed by intentional gun violence. It also has the highest rate of guns per household. I did some extensive thinking and reached the conclusion that there just might be a connection.
There were some happy stories in that clip, where people flashed a gun and robbers ran off. What would have happened if the robbers had guns? Surely that clip was just part of the reality.
I'm sorry for thinking you meant revolutionary when you emphasized how he was different from other politicians.
Quote from: "Rxn"... Making interpretations that suits them personally well. =
That is actually how everyone acts in any given circumstances.
Yep, but fortunelately not exactly everyone, so count me out as a follower of whatever Ron.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"
I'm interested in people with love, compassion, dignity and who are practising freedom of thought.
well.... that eliminates practically any career politician.... :(
personally I liked Ron Paul
why?
because the two "major" parties have done America a tremendous disservice. basically both parties have put America into a financially precarious situation that will destroy people's lives or the country or both.
republicans and democrats spent the social security funds when they should have not. the fund would be solvent had not congress borrowed against it to finance their spending and the spending of the executive branch.
Ron Paul represented to me true change - not perfection but a realism in monetary and fiscal policy. I disagree with the notion that he merely negated every idea out there. What he promoted was a true sea change in the way Washington is financed with the revolutionary idea of spending only the money you have.
I did not agree with all of his positions - but my and large he represented a real difference. Much more than even Obama.
In my book Obama = McCain= Bush=Clinton=Bush much more than Paul equals any of them.
Unfortunately America can't seem to get out of the stranglehold of a moribund two party system.
Quote from: "g"Surely that clip was just part of the reality.
Here's another part of reality. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6416320.html)
Quote from: "g"Quote from: "g"Surely that clip was just part of the reality.
Here's another part of reality. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6416320.html)
It is part of reality. Depends on what conclusions you draw from that. A short-term conclusion would just be to not think this over and simply ban weapons. Simple.
If you take time to think, though, you would see that shooting a trespasser is being very aggressive. Not a lot of people would behave that way. Before you shoot, you have to warn: "I have a gun - get out". Just shooting silently at someone who set foot into your backyard is inadequate.
So the problem is not in the weapon. The problem is in how people use the weapon. And most people will NOT use the weapon that way. Banning weapons because two idiots shot someone is outright stupid. Besides, these things happen. And they will happen anyway. If those people wouldn't have had a gun, they would've ran those trespassers over in a car - believe me, if one is an idiot, it will manifest itself somehow.
But if you ban weapons - normal citizens will not have weapons. Criminals, however, will have weapons anyway - whether it is allowed or not. So if you ban weapons - people don't have the defence and criminals will be 100% sure you have nothing to defend yourself - not even a knife.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Criminals, however, will have weapons anyway - whether it is allowed or not. So if you ban weapons - people don't have the defence and criminals will be 100% sure you have nothing to defend yourself - not even a knife.
Most criminals have weapons because they're readily available. And no, I don't think those people would have gotten the car and run the kid over instead. Guns make it too easy to kill another person, all you need is a split second of losing control and the person at the other side of the gun is dead. Stabbing someone to death takes a lot more effort. And why would banning guns mean that people have no knives at home? Will we not eat meat or slice bread without guns?
Of course it's not as easy as banning all guns and they will magically disappear, but you have to start somewhere. Anyway, I assure you I have taken time to think about this, and my conclusion is obviously different from yours and Ron's.
QuoteMost criminals have weapons because they're readily available.
This is the weak point of your reasoning, in my opinion.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"QuoteMost criminals have weapons because they're readily available.
This is the weak point of your reasoning, in my opinion.
Why? Are you suggesting criminals have weapons factories?
I am suggesting that criminals can get weapons relatively easily, yes. If they really need a weapon - they can get it. And not only they can get a gun, they can get a knife, which in some states people are not allowed to carry on their person - which in reality means that normal citizens won't have knives while criminals of course will.
If by "available" you mean available in question - produced - and by making weapons readily unavailable you mean not making weapons at all, then I believe that it is simply not realistic.
p.s.: and btw, yes, there are illegal weapon factories all over the world which supply lots of countries with unregistered guns and rifles and whatnot.
Anything can be used as a weapon, a car, a knife, a hammer, while they are not meant to be.
A gun is designed to be a weapon, that's a difference. And as g states, very easy to use.
In cultures where having guns is normal (good for the economy), it's often the excuse, that it's for defensive purposes.
Strictly spoken, this can't be. As soon as one would fire back in an attack, it's an offensive act as well.
Where to start ? First a ban on cowardly weapons like landmines, air bombing, and hunting deer with leaden hail.
IMHO a better start would be making a world in which there was little if anything to fight for.
Yes, something like that. I do honestly believe that banning weapons is not a solution. But I also have noticed that people that oppose this said nothing about my "criminal"-"normal citizen" argument.
Maybe because it's a bit of a chicken/egg argument. If it wasn't so easy to get a license, or buy a gun anyway,
there wouldn't be so much criminals. And under circumstances any "normal" citizen can turn into a criminal.
See 'Going down' with Michael Douglas.
QuoteAnd under circumstances any "normal" citizen can turn into a criminal.
Well this is true only with the "under circumstances". Those circumstances have to be very-very specific. All in all, I cannot agree that there are many criminals because the weapons are readily available - it's not the weapon that makes a criminal, it's the mind, the values of a human being. I do not believe this to be a chicken-egg argument at all - the egg is the person. The gun is the chicken. If a person is a criminal, it is not because he has a knife in his pocket.
QuoteAnd under circumstances any "normal" citizen can turn into a criminal.
Right to the point.
Quote from: "Rxn"QuoteAnd under circumstances any "normal" citizen can turn into a criminal.
Right to the point.
Hm. Why such disbelief in human morality? In a pivot of a character that holds a person together?
Actually, this is also part of the banning - this attitude that says - we don't trust you. If we don't ban weapons you will all turn into animals shooting each other.
In reality that doesn't happen. Have more confidence in people.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Yes, something like that. I do honestly believe that banning weapons is not a solution. But I also have noticed that people that oppose this said nothing about my "criminal"-"normal citizen" argument.
It's a non-argument. There is absolutely no reason to think crime will increase if guns are banned. Criminals are criminals, they will rob you anyway. If either the attacker or the victim of a crime has a gun, the chances of someone dying is heavily increased. I would feel much safer if people would ditch guns and use katanas instead. Then at least you'd have to get close to the person you're trying to defend yourself against.
I think the "have more confidence in people" argument doesn't go too well with your "criminals will always have guns and kill people that can't defend themselves" argument.
Free availability of weapons and 'circumstances [under which]
any "normal" citizen can turn into a criminal' are not related the least.
Quote from: "Rxn"Free availability of weapons and 'circumstances [under which]
any "normal" citizen can turn into a criminal' are not related the least.
I disagree, but I don't see the relevance so I won't argue. My point is that the more powerful weapons, the more dead people. Terror balance is not a good idea, it only creates a situation where both sides are more likely to make a pre-emptive strike in the name of "self defense".
I think every american citizen should be given a suitcase nuke to establish a real "balance of terror"
QuoteI don't see the relevance so I won't argue.
People will always do whatever they want when they know that no-one
will find out about it or they think they won't get caught.
You can pass\abolish laws about anything until blue in the face---it won't
make any difference. Just watch the news and see for yourself.
That is the core point of the mp3 piracy problem and pretty much of any
other social issue we have on hands.
Quote from: "uncloned"I think every american citizen should be given a suitcase nuke to establish a real "balance of terror"
Everyone in the world should have a doomsday device :D
Quote from: "rxn"You can pass\abolish laws about anything until blue in the face---it won't make any difference. Just watch the news and see for yourself.
So the liberal gun laws in the USA has nothing to do with the high number of gun-related deaths? I must be watching the wrong news.
Quotemp3 piracy problem
piracy is attacking ships and killing all people on them. copying a file is not piracy - try to avoid using this propaganda term ;)
QuoteSo the liberal gun laws in the USA has nothing to do with the high number of gun-related deaths? I must be watching the wrong news.
You've been watching the same news but you've been making different conclusions.
Also I haven't seen a graph that shows that states that have liberal gun laws have actually more crime - but I have seen data of the opposite.
QuoteEveryone in the world should have a doomsday device
From a philosophical view, a very nice one.
But in reality I'm afraid it will take less time than a PC without a firewall to get infected, until the globe is blown up.
Quotepiracy is attacking ships and killing all people on them. copying a file is not piracy - try to avoid using this propaganda term
Right on Louigi. The same semantic trick as used about people 'stealing' samples, so being 'thieves'.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"From a philosophical view, a very nice one. But in reality I'm afraid it will take less time than a PC without a firewall to get infected, until the globe is blown up.
Oh well, there'd be no one around to miss it anyway... :wink:
Louigi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country
g: interesting data. to be honest, though, I did not see a clear dependency on the availability of weapons. The numbers are pretty random. Just look at Canada, Latvia and Belarus. An interesting set of numbers.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"g: interesting data. to be honest, though, I did not see a clear dependency on the availability of weapons. The numbers are pretty random. Just look at Canada, Latvia and Belarus. An interesting set of numbers.
So the fact that USA, with the most liberal gun laws of developed countries, has a firearm homicide rate that's more than five times most other developed countries is random?
No, you got it wrong, we American's are just hunting - its our God given right to hunt. Everyone in our neighborhood hunts squirrel's with a glock handgun and AK 47's ... Just ask the NRA.
Quote from: "g"Quote from: "Louigi Verona"g: interesting data. to be honest, though, I did not see a clear dependency on the availability of weapons. The numbers are pretty random. Just look at Canada, Latvia and Belarus. An interesting set of numbers.
So the fact that USA, with the most liberal gun laws of developed countries, has a firearm homicide rate that's more than five times most other developed countries is random?
I did not see any such trend. The numbers are before me - where do you see it? I don't.
First column, % homicides with firearms, you can see that 65% of all homicides in the USA are "people getting shot". This is a high number, only Guatemala and Colombia are higher. In other words, two out of three homicides in the USA are gun-related.
Second column, firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population,you can see how many out of 100 000 people were killed by a firearm. In my opinion you should compare the USA to other developed countries such as Spain or Australia.
Third column, Non-firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population. Here you can see that the numbers for USA is a little higher than comparable countries, but not at all by as much as the firearm homicide rate.
Fourth column is just second and third added.
What you can use as arguments against these numbers are that they're from 2000 (I couldn't find any more recent numbers) and that Canada which has pretty liberal gun laws doesn't stand out in the same way the USA does at all.
Quoteyou can see how many out of 100 000 people were killed by a firearm
It appears to me that they have fairly evil firearms in the US.
Quote from: "Rxn"Quoteyou can see how many out of 100 000 people were killed by a firearm
It appears to me that they have fairly evil firearms in the US.
Guns don't kill people, bullets do.
Also: Ali G (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhvKYzKwf88)
Ali G is great. Bad sub-clip with the laughter by the way.
Yep. Nuclear weapons don't kill people. Tiny radioactive particles do.
nice vid. :D
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"Yep. Nuclear weapons don't kill people. Tiny radioactive particles do.
That kind of depends; the fireball, the thermal radiation or the air blast might kill people before the tiny radioactive particles even get a shot.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"How could I've missed this guy before? He seems to be a very interesting person to me. Basically, this is the real politician - with long term thinking.
Ron Paul is great.
Hey, PPH! Long time no see! How are you?
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Hey, PPH! Long time no see! How are you?
I'm fine! I'm not so active in music anymore. Maybe it's lack of time. I've had other projects, work, etc. Anyway, I'm trying to come back!
Yep, PPH, nice to see you again..
Quote from: "g"Quote from: "Sam_Zen"Yep. Nuclear weapons don't kill people. Tiny radioactive particles do.
That kind of depends; the fireball, the thermal radiation or the air blast might kill people before the tiny radioactive particles even get a shot.
you know... when you come down to it the fault lies with the fact that people's bodies are made to such a poor specification. If they were only tougher, like say a cyborg being, it wouldn't phase them at all.....
Quote from: "uncloned"Quote from: "g"Quote from: "Sam_Zen"Yep. Nuclear weapons don't kill people. Tiny radioactive particles do.
That kind of depends; the fireball, the thermal radiation or the air blast might kill people before the tiny radioactive particles even get a shot.
you know... when you come down to it the fault lies with the fact that people's bodies are made to such a poor specification. If they were only tougher, like say a cyborg being, it wouldn't phase them at all.....
I'm not sure about that. A cyborg also needs to deal with the EMP, right?
vacuum tubes for the win!
they are unaffected by EMP and the Russians use them (or did) in fighter jets for instance to harden then against nukes. The Russians miniaturized vacuum tubes successfully.
That I didn't know. Cyborgs for the win, then!
OT. Nice you mention that, Clones. When developing electronics the west was quite cynical about the russian engineers,
to go on with their tubes instead of the tiny transistors.
The EMP told another story... I once used a machine for measuring capacitors, build with tubes (or 'valves').
It was meant to have a power of 110 v, but I connected to 220 v...
All worked fine, the tubes only gave a bit more light. :)
but who is Ron Paul when you have a superhero for president eh?
http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/hes_barack_obama
http://blog.reddit.com/2009/07/dr-no-says-yes-to-reddit-interview.html