Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 23, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
In Reckless Hands

In Reckless Hands

By Victoria Nourse
$16.47

more items

 
A/V Booth

Honeymoon May Be Over for Ron Paul

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 12, 2007
ENTER_ALT_TEXT

Ron Paul may have soured his antiwar appeal among progressives with a speech Saturday at the Iowa straw poll. Paul referred to Roe v. Wade as “that horrible ruling,” called for the abolition of the Departments of Energy and Education and the IRS, and attacked welfare and immigrants. But the most bizarre moment came when he suggested airline passengers should be allowed to carry guns, saying: “I think 9/11, quite frankly, could have been prevented if we had had a lot more respect for the Second Amendment.”

Watch it:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By marengo, October 17, 2011 at 11:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

its amazing…

Report this

By Travis, August 20, 2007 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In the past Ron Paul has pointed out that it is illegal for airline pilots to carry guns. He suggested that if the airlines could decide who could carry weapons and who couldn’t, then they would likely (and sensibly) allow their pilots to carry guns in order to protect against hijacking. It make sense to me.

Report this

By Bill Stewart, August 20, 2007 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ga, the Republicans don’t work like that, as much as George Bush and Karl Rove and their faction might like them to.  There are lots of different reasons that people think the Republican party might be better for the country or for themselves than the Democratic Party or the Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, etc., or than non-partisanship.  (Many of these people are wrong, of course, but the Democrats have serious problems as well grin 

Ron Paul’s anti-war positions are genuine, and they’re not just because this particular war is going badly - he’s been pushing them for decades.  He doesn’t think the US government should be invading foreign countries for fun and profit the way Bush or Clinton or Bush#1 or Nixon or LBJ or Kennedy or Truman did; he thinks the only purpose for the US military is to protect America from foreign attackers.  He believes in free trade, and he thinks that the Constitution strictly limits what the Federal government can do - most of the power and the big-spending decisions should be left to the states, where citizens have more influence on them.

There are a lot of isolationists out there who think the US military should just protect the US, and who want some kinds of limitations on immigration; probably more of them are Republican than Democrat.  Ron Paul’s not exactly one of them - he believes in free trade, and unlike the anti-globalization leftist isolationists, he thinks the best way to keep the US economy strong is for the government, especially the Feds, to stop messing with it and stop taxing everybody to spend on things it shouldn’t be doing.

Report this

By Ga, August 20, 2007 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment

Why did not anyone get that Ron Paul was a REPUBLICAN?

Some Replublican candidates may have reasonable thoughts occaisonally—pro-choice (which really is pro-privacy), anti-war (because it’s going badly)—but in the end they remain REPUBLICAN.

Report this

By dansama, August 20, 2007 at 10:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
Ron Paul nor any candidate can pass everyones litmus test. He does have consistency, and integrity which is sorely lacking from the other Republican candidates. I find it interesting that we are so polarized any candidate from the other side must be vilified. This article smacks of knee-jerk reaction to a small outside the bubble campaign and finding a way to smear his cause. Ron Paul does not take special interest money, wow that would be something to mention or the fact that active military and vets have given more to him than any Democratic candidate.

Report this

By Alex Cacioppo, August 19, 2007 at 11:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The Founders would be ashamed of us with what we’re putting up with.” Yes, indeed! Hell, Ron Paul is as anti-globalization, anti-war and anti-state as ever here; why should anything change regarding how the Left sees him? Did I miss something?

Don’t you think they’d understand that his absolutist stand for individual freedom means carting away huge chunks of the government; what’s different? The equation of terminating a pregnancy and committing murder may seem inconsistent here, but I think he frames it well by saying that matters of life are not within the domain of free choice.

In *all other* areas, however, he ought to be still the perfect Left candidate (if “Left” still designates the position of freedom from the state and the maximization of individual liberty). “This campaign stands for freedom, prosperity and peace.” What’s not to like?

Report this

By theoreticalgirl, August 18, 2007 at 12:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Do we really need the Department of Education to run the public school system? The horrible, centralized No Child Left Behind (which releases children’s names to armed forces recruiters) answers the question. Ron Paul never said he wants to get rid of public education (watch his Google interview). He simply wants the money to go directly to the local government. Jeffersonian decentralization!

Report this

By theoreticalgirl, August 18, 2007 at 12:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s the war and the destructive/self-destructive foreign policy of the both wings of the War Party that is my main concern in the upcoming election. Ron Paul knows the roots of the problem and he will work to eradicate them. He is also right-on on civil liberties. Why don’t “Progressives” see that government is a problem, not a solution? The more citizens depend on the government, the more powerful the government gets. Nannydom leads to our current warfare state, wiretapping and gradual loss of civil liberties. Our federal government has become the biggest corporation whose main goal is to preserve its own interest. Yes, they have a few poorly-run programs to keep the poor from revolting while at the same time take away their dignity and train them to be ready for wage slavery. The open border system is just another ploy to provide cheap labor for corporations.

Report this

By Bill Stewart, August 17, 2007 at 11:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I voted for Ron Paul in 1988.  I took the Ron Paul bumpersticker off my car a few years later when he endorsed Pat Buchanan because of Pat’s anti-immigrant position.  I’ve talked to him briefly about the issue, and he thinks the government owns the while country and should keep out most foreigners as opposed to nationalizing immigrants, which isn’t a Constitutionally supportable position or a Libertarian one.  He makes a good Republican, and I’m happy to have him in Congress with Bernie Sanders.  Of course he’s opposed to about 95% of the current special interests that feed the Federal Government, so he doesn’t have a chance, but he’s still my favorite of the Republican candidates.  And he’s against the war.

In general, Paul’s opposed to just about any of the special interests who want the Feds to do things, except for the anti-immigration people (and the anti-tax people who want the Feds to Not do things, but they don’t have a significant base.)  So he’s not going to get nominated, much less win, but at least if he’s in the Republican debates he helps direct topics to something other than “Pro-Terrorist Liberals - Threat or Menace”, just as Dennis Kucinich helps get the Democrats to occasionally focus on liberal values as opposed to just “Who Can Win”. 

Guns on Airplanes - the Mythbusters pretty handily demolished the exploding-airplane myth, and even that Hawaiian plane that had the roof shred off because of metal fatigue only lost one person, a flight attendant who was standing up.  Doesn’t mean a small crowded enclosed space with no exit doors is somewhere you want to be in a gunfight, but that’s also true of subway cars, trains, and office buildings. 

Guns in general - Liberals like guns, they just hire guys in blue suits to carry them around for them.  They also hire those guys to take guns away from the public because they trust their cops more than they trust you.  Liberals should be embarassed about this position, because it’s hypocritical; the elitist types of conservatives aren’t bothered by that sort of thing. 

Abortion - That’s the big reason many liberals don’t find Ron acceptable, because it’s an overriding ideological litmus test for many of them them.  (Liberal pro-lifers like Nat Hentoff are rare, but lots of Catholic Democrats are still around.)  The right-wingers don’t really like his position either, because he thinks that it’s not the Federal government’s business, and even if some states make it illegal, women can easily go to other states, and he thinks that realistically the political climate will keep it legal.  Also, he doesn’t think that the abortion issue should be used as a surrogate for controlling women who want to have sex, which is why many of the right-wingers really care about it.  The Libertarian party was divided on Ron’s abortion position when he was their candidate - the pro-life minority in the party was mostly non-religious small-government people and religious anarchists, but most of the legal-abortion side felt that his view that it wasn’t the Federal government’s business was good enough, and almost all of us agreed that goverment shouldn’t be funding abortion.  Have we upset everybody yet?  grin

Paul’s position that the Constitution only provides for a small and limited Federal government is a problem for some liberals, who want to take advantage of Federal size and scale and tax money to do Good Things; otherwise they’ve got to work through their state governments or community grassroots or the private sector to fund their Good Things, which is a lot harder, and realistically it’s a lot harder to rebuild that kind of infrastructure when the strong Federal government has supplanted it since FDR.  It’s also a problem for the pro-war government-imposed-morality right wingers, and they’ve scared off most of the more libertarian-leaning conservatives as well as scaring the Democrats.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, August 17, 2007 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment

Response to Tyler, who said:

“ALL westernized countries that exercise different forms of gun control have LOWER crime rates than the US.”

Not true, Tyler. You have oversimplified the issue. Some countries like Switzerland are very heavily armed, and have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. In Switzerland, all adult males are required by law, as part of the Swiss Militia, to keep fully automatic weapons in their homes.

On the other hand, some countries that have gun control, such as Japan, also have low crime rates relative to the USA. Clearly, the cause of high or low crime rates is a very complex question. But you cannot oversimplify by saying that guns cause crime, or that not having guns causes crime.

In England and Australia, which have recently made it almost impossible to own guns, the rate of violent crime using guns has skyrocketed. Why? Because the perpetrators now know they will not meet any serious resistance.

This is a very complex issue. I suggest reading the works of John Lott to get a better grasp of the issue of guns and crime rates.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, August 17, 2007 at 9:04 pm Link to this comment

Reply to Douglas Chalmers, who said:

“There have been Israeli settlers who have attacked Arab Moslem mosques with automatic weapons as well. They killed far more Arabs than vice versa. Gt ALl the facts, thanks, before you start trumpeting, please.”

My point in discussing Israeli schools was to show that schools can be made safer, even in very violent areas, if guns are available for self defense. I think this point remains valid.

Regarding the Palestinians, I am very sympathetic to their plight. I doubt the Israeli settlers who have attacked mosques with automatic weapons got them from their local schools, though I suppose it might be possible. Can you documentthe source of the weapons that were used?

I suspect Palestinians are, to a large extent, disarmed, though of course many of them get their hands on weapons through the underground.

My point was not to celebrate the Israelis as against the Palestinians, but simply to make a point about the use of weapons in self-defense.

Report this

By Frank, August 17, 2007 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

Err..huh? Sorry, if there was humor or some kind of point that post, please explain it for us.

Did that make sense to anyone else?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 17, 2007 at 4:53 am Link to this comment

#95566 by Frank on 8/16 at 6:38 pm: “....On planes is one of those times when I am willing to give up my right to carry to be sure that nobody else can carry either…”

Sounds like a de facto version of the abortion debate, duh. Good luck with your “baby”, Frank, you’re going to need it!

#Quote Frank: “Thankfully, nutjobs or temporarily-disturbed people on flights are generally in the minority…... I have a CCW permit myself…”

So are pregnant mothers, Frank. Don’t worry, you’ll make it safely to the hospital and even “carrry” full term, ha ha! Do try to get a first aid permit for a change, though.

Report this

By Frank, August 16, 2007 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

I am very much a supporter of the second amendment, private gun ownership,  and of concealed carry permits for law-abiding citizens. I have a CCW permit myself.  I am 100% opposed to allowing passengers to carry-on guns on commercial flights, however.

Why? Airplanes in flight are very unique environment. All passengers on board are essentially captives with no means of escape from the time the flight takes off until it lands. The environment of flight can cause high anxiety, hysteria, and borderline psychotic behavior in otherwise well-adjusted people.  Basically, some people just go nuts on planes due to fear of flying, claustrophobia, whatever. 

Thankfully,  nutjobs or temporarily-disturbed people on flights are generally in the minority, so they are usually easily restrained by the superior numbers of ‘sane’ passengers and crew before they can do much harm.  But a gun in the hands of a disturbed person would negate the advantage of numbers that the sane passengers have, and could create a situation that threatens hundreds of lives. You can’t count on other passengers also being armed, and even if some were, you certainly don’t want these disturbances on flights escalating into gun stand-offs or shootouts between amateurs.

On planes is one of those times when I am willing to give up my right to carry to be sure that nobody else can carry either, because it is a well-screened environment where compliance is mostly guaranteed.  Unlike gun restricted cities where the outlaws may still carry guns and the law-abiders are unarmed, at least on an airliner the playing field is leveled, and there is safety in numbers among the unarmed, sane passengers.

I do approve of well-trained flight deck crews being armed to prevent the cockpit from being compromised.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 16, 2007 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

#95530 by Frank on 8/16 at 2:59 pm: “...The simple truth which is too taboo for public discussion is the majority of US violent crime is attributable to blacks, aka African Americans.  Take blacks out of the equation, and we would have a very low crime rate, even with our high gun ownership….”

Isn’t this also a matter of poverty and social repression? The errors of a white prejudiced society’s history can’t all be merely wished away overnight by words on a piece of paper. Simple Truth, indeed!

Report this

By tyler, August 16, 2007 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

frank is one of these idiots i speak of.  Nice comment frank.

Report this

By Frank, August 16, 2007 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

ALL westernized countries that exercise different forms of gun control have LOWER crime rates than the US.

That’s not the point. The point is that crimes rates typically go UP in these counties when they institute strict gun control. It happened in the UK and Australia. In England, strict gun control was enacted in 1997 including a handgun ban.  In the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July 2002, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

The simple truth which is too taboo for public discussion is the majority of US violent crime is attributable to blacks, aka African Americans.  Take blacks out of the equation, and we would have a very low crime rate, even with our high gun ownership.  Blacks are 13% of the US population and yet commit more than 50% of muggings and murders in the US, according to the DOJ and FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

Report this

By Frank, August 16, 2007 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

ALL westernized countries that exercise different forms of gun control have LOWER crime rates than the US.

That’s not the point. The point is that crimes rates typically go UP in these counties when they institute strict gun control. It happened in the UK and Australia. In England, strict gun control was enacted in 1997 including a handgun ban.  In the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July 2002, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

The simple truth which is too tabo for public discussion is the majority of US violent crime is attributable to blacks, aka African Americans.  Take blacks out of the equation, and we would have a very low crime rate, even with our high gun owbership.  Blacks are 13% of the US population and yet commit more than 50% of muggings and murders in the US, according to the DOJ and FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

Report this

By gopindrag, August 16, 2007 at 7:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here’s hoping all you shrieking 2d amendment fans keep all the guns you want so that when the night stalker opens your bedroom door you can shoot him in the gut (tell me again how you see the difference between an adult intruder and a child size resident from down the hall?).
And about the illegal immingrants, which is easier, chasing down millions of illegals or fining Wal Mart ONE MILLION DOLLARS EACH for every illegal they hire.
C’mon outraged citizen tell me why you wouldn’t fine an employer for hiring illegals?  You could build a 700 miles long wall with those $1,000,000.00 fines, right?

Report this

By Jack, August 16, 2007 at 12:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron is right…poor attempt to nail him here, not even a comment why he is ‘wrong’.
+Ron attacked -illegal- immigrants. Of course he does..it’s -ILLEGAL-.
Have you guys thought about what a non-intervention agenda would mean for the countries where these immigrants come from?...damn neocon ‘democrats’.

+everything in this ‘pamphlet’ (no substance at all) is well known, no secrets here to reveal.

Report this

By tyler, August 15, 2007 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I just love reading and listening to the outrage that ensues whenever gun control is brought up.  It doesn’t matter if you’re left wing or right wing, americans need their guns!

I gotta agree with #94826 One Little Vicory, when they say that if per capita private gun ownership meant increased security, than the the US would be the most secure country in the world.

Little correction though, Canada has more privately owned guns per capita than the US, and gun crime is a fraction of what the US’s is comparitivly.

Canada just has bans on certain types of guns, namely assault rifles, automatics, and heavy hand gun restrictions.

Brainstorm says in comment #94874 that “gun control creates crime”, and couldn’t be more wrong.  ALL westernized countries that exercise different forms of gun control have LOWER crime rates than the US.

“An armed society is a polite society”???

Ya that seems to be working out doesn’t it, idiots.

Wake up america and just drop the archaic 2nd amendment BS.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, August 15, 2007 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

Re:#95167 by driving bear on 8/15 at 11:57 am
(2 comments total)

Ron Paul is right on 2nd admement and on abortion
Face facts 85 % of americans are pro-life
in 2006 pew research center poll revealed that 15 % of americans support a ban on abortion , 15% support the current abortion rights and 70 % think abortion should be legal only in cases of risk to life of the mother ,or in cases of rape/incest.
Also more guns means less crime.
——————————————————————————
Driving bear,

Where did you get those statistics? The Pew Research Center?  I looked and didn’t find anything like that at all, at least not using their search tool.  I did find this though:

“Although the public sees a strong link between Christianity and the country’s national identity, a July 2006 poll indicates that most Americans think citizen preferences should outweigh the Bible as an influence on American law. When asked which should have more influence over the laws of the country - the Bible or the will of the people, even when it conflicts with the Bible - most Americans (63%) say the people’s will should have more sway. A significant minority (32%), however, believes the Bible should be more important.”  (Could you put a link to that poll?)

Also, more guns means less crime…..???  Well, that would be a hard one to sell in the rough inner city communities. Whereas most rural people do not feel guns cause more violence.

Report this

By Fixer, August 15, 2007 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#95016 by cyrena on 8/15 at 2:19 am
(821 comments total)

“These are two of a list of “facts” provider by Fixer, regarding as he calls it, “the whole “weapons on airplanes” thing. If these “facts” seem confusing, and even contradictory or oxymoronic, it’s because they are. (not saying they aren’t true, but only pointing out how bureaucratically stupid these facts are).”
—-
Of course it’s contradictory, that’s the point. FAA rules allow weapons in the cabin if the person is federal law enforcement. By blessing FFDO pilots, TSA makes them into federal law enforcement, after a fashion. Voila! Compliance with FAA regs is achieved. Having said that, FAA will not allow the airlines to develop and implement their own program to arm pilots.
—-
“We’ve got this TSA, who supposedly guards the skies and the traveling public from the dangers of terrorists, and it is these people who administer the alleged Flight Deck Training program, which allegedly trains PILOTS to fly armed on commercial airlines, in order to provide this protection. (I would question the “factuality” of whether these are indeed pilots as in Airmen designated as such by an FAA issued license, but we’ll leave that as”academic” for the moment).

Yet the REAL “pilots” who are employed by commercial airline, and are flying the aircraft that belongs to the commercial airline, are regulated by the FAA, so THEY aren’t allowed to have them. But presumably, the TSA dude is sitting less than 3 feet away from them, holding the guns, to fight off any terrorists. So, for anyone that might be confused, it’s understandable.”
—-
It’s real simple. Say you’re a REAL pilot for Delta Airlines, and you want to carry a gun in the cockpit. You apply to TSA to become an FFDO. You go through the vetting process, receive training in firearms, procedures and tactics. Upon successful completion of the program (which many pilots pay for out of their own pockets) you receive credentials that certify you as a “Federal Flight Deck Officer”. You are, during the time that you are a pilot on an active crew, permitted to carry the weapon into the aircraft cabin. For the duration of the flight, you have the same carrying priviledges as any other Federal law enforcement. When you are not on active status, you have to check your weapon like everyone else.
—-
“As for sneaking up on cockpit crews, I’ve done it dozens of times. (not intentionally, they just weren’t paying attention) That door is indeed open during boarding, as well as deplaning, and even while it’s locked, more than a few crew members are likely to have keys. One fits all doors. And, for the average sized cockpit crew member, (harnessed into their little bucket seats) it’s more than a notion to just spring right out of that sucker, and grab you’re gun. (especially for those older dudes with their widening girths).”
—-
I was referring to sneaking up on pilots in-flight, but I see I failed to specify. In addition, an FFDO pilot is armed to prevent a takedown of the cockpit. I do not suggest that they would respond to an altercation in the cabin.

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, August 15, 2007 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul is right on 2nd admement and on abortion
Face facts 85 % of americans are pro-life
in 2006 pew research center poll revealed that 15 % of americans support a ban on abortion , 15% support the current abortion rights and 70 % think abortion should be legal only in cases of risk to life of the mother ,or in cases of rape/incest.
Also more guns means less crime.

Report this

By Logician, August 15, 2007 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

And how many of you dirty little inbred mouth breathers missed his most powerful statement?

“We should revalue(sic) this idea the misinterpretation of the constitution that anybody who is just born here is a natural citizen that needs to be revisited.”

I realize that you don’t get all that much ‘histry larnin’ while jackin off to Larry the Cable Guy so I’ll educate your inbred asses about the significance, sorry, the importance, sorry again, (it IS difficult to educate about ideas WITHOUT using multisyllabic words) the ‘bad’ in that ‘thankin.’

“...that anybody who is just born here is a natural citizen….”  The constitution does not equivocate upon this issue and you inbreeds should thank your Clairol Jeebus it doesn’t or you’d be out of this country in an instant.  If you are born here you are a citizen of this country.  Period.

But this second rate Gantry says this should not be the case.  That means, my little inbred, toothless wonders, that there will be some OTHER standard by which citizenship will be determined.  Stop the hand action up your little sister for a minute and twist your freakish faces into a thoughtful look and try, just try, to pull that idea into the twisted flesh of your inbred brains: there will be a new way to determine if you are a citizen of this country and it will not matter if you were born here or not.

Now, I realize I’ve already overtaxed your simple minds by challenging them to think about something else besides family boffing so I’ll cut to the chase:  The determination of citizenship by means other than birth has been tried elsewhere at other times.  For the most recent example have someone literate read to you about Nazism.  You know, those kooky guys with the kinky uniforms you love to dress your mother in before you make yourself another brother/son.

Ron Paul is just another Nazi talking of “strict interpretation” of the constitution, meaning HIS interpretation, meaning:

Women have no rights over their bodies.
Anyone and Everyone should have the right to kill anyone they feel is a threat to them or their country at any time.
Universal education is useless, if you want to teach your brother/son that Jeebus made 9-11 happen because there are gays in the military, why that’s your right and you should be able to just shoot any ‘kollege edumacated librel jewish smartass’ who disagrees with y’all.
Citizenship is not a right of birth, but of some form of not yet spoken merit.  And you can just bet that will mean: no gays, no smart mouth women, no one with ANY dissenting views, no blacks, no browns, no jews, no muslims, no one, in fact, who does not sound, talk and behave EXACTLY like him, etc, etc, etc.

This nasty little turd is so transparently and hatefully bigoted it is no wonder only inbred Jeds follow him. 

But of course we’ll hear from the inbreds who went to ‘skewl’ long enough to ‘larn’ how to ‘deebate’ about how ‘God’ is in Paul and anyone who doesn’t agree is just ‘evil.’ Spare me your heoric efforts at spelling and calling me ‘arrogant.’  The real arrogance is this privileged white abomination deciding that HE should be the judge, jury, and arbitrator of EVERY woman’s rights. 

So fire away, inbreeds.  At least it’ll keep you from banging your mammas and making more brother/son freaks to follow your favorite fascists.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, August 15, 2007 at 7:03 am Link to this comment

Response to “Outraged”:

“Your logic is seriously flawed. First of all, VT nor Columbine is the “Warsaw Ghetto”.”

Actually, it IS analogous to the Warsaw Ghetto, if you think in terms of broad principles. That is, legally disarmed citizens are easy targets, whether the guy wielding the murder weapon is just a street thug, or the type of thug who wears a shiny government badge.

You also ask rhetorically whose hands constitute the “right hands” for having a gun. In a Columbine or VT situation, the answer is: anyone who can use the weapon to stop the killing. The creep at VT was able to carry on with his slaughter for hours until he finally took his own life. A single weapon in the hands of any student or instructor would have saved all those lives.

You also said:

“It takes a lot more than merely being a good shot or knowing how to “handle” a gun, to be qualified.  It’s a mindset and perspective of humanity, which makes a “good” gun owner different from someone who owns/has a gun.”

Well, I think you described the VT and Columbine situations perfectly. The ONLY person who had a weapon was the person who didn’t have a good “mindset and perspective of humanity.” Everyone else was disarmed.

Now, let’s say, hypothetically, that one person in the rooms where all those people were butchered had access to a single weapon. Let’s say that person hadn’t even had gun safety training. I submit that, even in this situation, the victims would have been able to figure out how to use the weapon and take down the criminal.

Report this

By cyrena, August 15, 2007 at 3:20 am Link to this comment

Part II

So, back in those days, passengers traveling with firearms had certain requirements, as determined by the airline, in compliance with federal regulations. The rifles/guns/whatever, had to be unloaded and locked in an approved container, (bullets carried or stored in a separate container) and it had to be transported in the belly of the aircraft with the other cargo. Period. No exceptions for regular folks.

For federal and some other law enforcement personnel, there were exceptions, but these too, were strictly monitored. FBI, DEA, and ATF were some of the regular gun-toters back then, who could indeed carry their weapons on board, but only after completing all of the routine bureaucratic protocols. That involved the paperwork, which noted their ID, affiliation, seat number, physical introduction to the crew, etc. Heaven forbid there should be more than one of them on the same flight, because then they had to be introduced to EACH OTHER. THESE are the precautions that are necessary when an operation involves putting people in a closed environment in the middle of the sky, when someone has a weapon.
And, guess what? It somehow just seemed to work. I have to say that, because in the years between 1975, and 2001, (to the best of my knowledge) there was never a US airliner highjacked on US soil, by any group of political militants, for any reason.

This has occurred in other places, and we all remember the terror attacks on Pan Am, as well as the TWA flight that disintegrated over Lockerbie, but here in the U.S., we did not experience that particular sort of sabotage that has been practiced in other areas of the globe, as a tactic of political resistance or opposition. (generally these highjackings have been an attempt to negotiate for something)


Still, this is not something that we have been plagued with in the history of our own commercial transportation system, and the addition of firearms to the mix, isn’t going to provide any enhanced “security” but it will increase the dangers of such, just as we noted with the execution of a passenger, (by a Federal Air Marshall) at the Miami airport two years ago.

Last but not least, lets think “practically” about the suggestion that Fixer has, about the ability of pilots to “shoot and fly” at the same time. Talk about a TV version. We’ve got a commercial airliner, say a 767 with an ass in every seat, (which is the goal of EVERY commercial airline operation) and that means approximately 200 folks crammed very densely into a very small space, from which they cannot move of run easily. And, Mr. Fixer would have us believe that the two people in the cockpit can successfully and simultaneously pilot the aircraft, talk to air traffic, (the feds) talk to their own operations people, and perform swat operations in a marksmanship-sniper type performance that will pick off the individual trouble makers on the flight, and not cause any damage to anything else. And, if the bullets hit a few of the windows, or maybe one of those engines that happens to be less than 12 inches away from most of those windows, which also happens to be full of fuel, then….no problem. Just hold onto your hats folks, we’ll get her down.

Please. What drugs are these than allow you such fantasy like imagination?

You need not apply for work in the industry. It’s just not ready for the shoot-em up cowboy operation. So, we’ll continue to keep guns off of airplanes.

As for sneaking up on cockpit crews, I’ve done it dozens of times. (not intentionally, they just weren’t paying attention) That door is indeed open during boarding, as well as deplaning, and even while it’s locked, more than a few crew members are likely to have keys. One fits all doors. And, for the average sized cockpit crew member, (harnessed into their little bucket seats) it’s more than a notion to just spring right out of that sucker, and grab you’re gun. (especially for those older dudes with their widening girths).

Report this

By cyrena, August 15, 2007 at 3:19 am Link to this comment

Part I
#94590 by Fixer on 8/13 at 11:43 am-

•  The TSA administrates the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program that trains, certifies and equips pilots to fly armed aboard commercial aircraft. FFDO pilots are, in effect, federal officers when they are flying armed. Pilots are issued FFDO credentials and are required to carry only the pistols issued by TSA.

- TSA does not regulate airline operations. FAA does, and will not alter its regulations to allow airlines to arm flight crews.

These are two of a list of “facts” provider by Fixer, regarding as he calls it, “the whole “weapons on airplanes” thing. If these “facts” seem confusing, and even contradictory or oxymoronic, it’s because they are. (not saying they aren’t true, but only pointing out how bureaucratically stupid these facts are).

We’ve got this TSA, who supposedly guards the skies and the traveling public from the dangers of terrorists, and it is these people who administer the alleged Flight Deck Training program, which allegedly trains PILOTS to fly armed on commercial airlines, in order to provide this protection. (I would question the “factuality” of whether these are indeed pilots as in Airmen designated as such by an FAA issued license, but we’ll leave that as”academic” for the moment).

Yet the REAL “pilots” who are employed by commercial airline, and are flying the aircraft that belongs to the commercial airline, are regulated by the FAA, so THEY aren’t allowed to have them. But presumably, the TSA dude is sitting less than 3 feet away from them, holding the guns, to fight off any terrorists. So, for anyone that might be confused, it’s understandable.

So, here’s a bit of a history that might explain how it became so complicated. First, the TSA is another bureaucratic invention that emerged as another prop in waging the “war on terror” campaign. Like so many of our other New Century institutions, it simply didn’t exist before the events of 9-11.

Prior to that, the only federal agencies governing or regulating the security or any other operations of the commercial airline industry was the Dept. of Transportation, of which the FAA was included, although I don’t know how that actually connected in the structure on paper. And, this “regulation” has been historically “loose” to put it mildly. Because, as Nick suggested in an earlier post, the airlines have for the most part, been tasked with the responsibilities for the overall security of their individual operations.

“So, for example, the airlines could decide to hire armed security guards to fly randomly and incognito.  They could arm them with training and weapons that make them more effective than any hijackers but would not pose a major risk to passengers.”..

While he suggests this as some new idea by from Ron Paul, it’s not. This is the way it’s been for 30 years, minus the “private security guards”. Because, that’s the way they (the airlines) wanted it. They preferred as little interference from the feds as possible. And, that’s the way it was…until 9-11.

This job has instead been performed by Federal Air Marshals, employed by the FAA and/or DOT. And, I should stress that it was “occasional”. Those agencies hired very few of these patrollers of the airways, (at least from the seats of commercial airliners) and I always wondered why they bothered, or what would ever even happen, that would require the need for armed force on board.

The crews ARE in fact equipped to handle standard emergencies, including unruly or belligerent passengers, but none of that has ever required a firearm, because the passengers and crews themselves are prevented from carrying weapons on board. Very obvious fundamental reasoning here…NOBODY has weapons, so NOBODY needs them. And, if ANYBODY has them, the chance of an accident automatically increases. (that’s simple logic, and it always troubles me that so many folks fail to get that.)

To be continued….

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, August 15, 2007 at 1:40 am Link to this comment

#94942 by Paolo on 8/14

Quote: “Don’t you think that even a single weapon in the right hands could have been used to shoot the monsters who methodically mowed down innocent kids, methodically reloaded, then mowed down some more?

That a few more firearms WOULD NOT have helped the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto?” endquote

Paolo:
Your logic is seriously flawed. First of all, VT nor Columbine is the “Warsaw Ghetto”.  Secondly, guns “in the right hands” is an abnomaly.  Sure, “IN THE RIGHT HANDS”, but Paolo, who would that be? You…?  Some idiot parent who “feels” fully “qualified”, c’mon.  Haven’t you ever seen an IDIOT toting a gun.  I have!  It takes a lot more than merely being a good shot or knowing how to “handle” a gun, to be qualified.  It’s a mindset and perspective of humanity, which makes a “good” gun owner different from someone who owns/has a gun.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 14, 2007 at 9:01 pm Link to this comment

#94942 by Paolo on 8/14 at 6:28 pm: “...Why don’t you ask the Israelis, who have a full cache of arms at all schools, for obvious reasons. Guess what? No firefights have broken out. That really should not surprise you….”

Garbage, Paolo. There have been Israeli settlers who have attacked Arab Moslem mosques with automatic weapons as well. They killed far more Arabs than vice versa. Gt ALl the facts, thanks, before you start trumpeting, please.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, August 14, 2007 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment

Ardee asked:

“Do you suggest that guns in Columbine high school would have been a solution to that tragedy? Or at VT?”

Don’t take my word for it, Ardee. Why don’t you ask the Israelis, who have a full cache of arms at all schools, for obvious reasons. Guess what? No firefights have broken out. That really should not surprise you.

And of course, Palestinian terrorists have not been attacking Israeli schools, for the very reason that the staff there has the ability to fight back.

Maybe you should ask an old-timer who went to New York public schools prior to the mid-1960’s, when after-school shooting clubs were common place. It was not uncommon to have a teenager bring his .22 to school, check it at the front office, and then go to target practice after school.

Again, no firefights broke out. And no Columbine-style massacres in New York City schools in those days.

Are you seriously saying that a few students or teachers having ready access to firearms WOULD NOT have helped at Columbine or VT? Don’t you think that even a single weapon in the right hands could have been used to shoot the monsters who methodically mowed down innocent kids, methodically reloaded, then mowed down some more?

That a few more firearms WOULD NOT have helped the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto?

The point history teaches us, over and over again, is that disarmed citizens are easy victims. Ron Paul understands this.

Now, rather than hurl insults, why not just state your case? I think we can have a civilized discussion, even if we disagree. I’m capable of that. Are you?

Report this

By nick, August 14, 2007 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rather than the silly position attributed to him by this blog, Ron Paul most likely supports a libertarian position along the following lines: that airline security decisions should be up to the airlines and their insurance companies—who in turn should be liable in normal common law negligence to any other victims if they screw up the security like they did on 9/11. 

So, for example, the airlines could decide to hire armed security guards to fly randomly and incognito.  They could arm them with training and weapons that make them more effective than any hijackers but would not pose a major risk to passengers.  The airlines, suitably incentivized by the ability of their customers to vote with their feet and by the common law of negligence, are in by far the best position to make these kinds of decisions.  Next to unelected and otherwise very poorly incentivized federal bureaucrats, idiotic political debates like this one (or the ones on TV) are by far the worst way to make these kinds of decisions.

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 14, 2007 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

@brainstorm:

“What on earth sort of society do you envision, the one you learned while watching cowboy movies? The one in which children are not collateral damage when fools like you start shooting?”

Would you prefer to be a fish in a barrel or an armed duck in a “shooting gallery”? I’d go with being the armed duck.

We already tried the fish in the barrel approach, see what it got us?

How about we allow people to defend themselves and others?

It’s amazing and unfortunate how scared people can be so of common sense.

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 14, 2007 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

@ardee
“What I fear are morons like you without the emotional maturity to understand that guns kill indiscriminately.”

Yeah, sure, whatever you say. It was silly of me to question the wisdom and ability of our Federal Government. Funny how when honest debate can’t support an argument, name calling ensues from the losing side of the argument.

Enjoy, your police state, ardee.

Report this

By Robert Schnitzer, August 14, 2007 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There will never be a candidate with whom you can expect to agree 100% of the time on 100% of the issues, ie: gun control, abortion, immigration, welfare, etc.  But if you truly believe we are in a crisis of such staggering proportions that our very “freedom, prosperity and peace” are at stake—dwarfing, in fact, those other “wedge” issues—then I believe the solutions put forth by Ron Paul, based on the US Constitution, make the most sense.  Far from a liability, I believe his appeal to voters on the far left, the far right and millions in between is a tremendous asset.  Except for Kucinich and Gravel, both of whom may not make it passed the primaries, Ron Paul is in a class by himself and worthy of our serious consideration as the next President.

Report this

By Chris S, August 14, 2007 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Listen to you useful idiots bicker over wedge issues.  Whether it comes from the left or the right, you are all being duped by the Establishment in order to pursue our “national interests” where national has nothing to do with We the People. 

Paul doesn’t play those games and that is the real issue Ron Paul is bringing to the table.  Who do you want running your country?  The people or corrupt, top down bureaucrats?  If you are voting for any of the top tier candidates in either party, Hillary and Scoop and Dump included, you are voting for the top down approach.

Report this

By Chris S, August 14, 2007 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Listen to you useful idiots bicker over wedge issues.  Whether it comes from the left or the right, you are all being duped by the Establishment in order to pursue our “national interests” where national has nothing to do with We the People. 

Paul doesn’t play those games and that is the real issue Ron Paul is bringing to the table.  Who do you want running your country?  The people or corrupt, top down bureaucrats?  If you are voting for any of the top tier candidates in either party, Hillary included, you are voting for the top down approach.

Report this

By brainstorm, August 14, 2007 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

ardee, you are the one lacking deductive logic.

If one want to commit mass killing, which venue is best:

- a place where by law all honest law-abiding persons are DISARMED (like a school or post office)

- a place brimming with armed people.

Over and over, it is proven that gun control laws do nothing to disarm criminals, instead they enable them to commit more crimes by disarming honest, law abiding people.

Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Therefore they end up being the only ones armed. (and the police, which are either inefficient, incompetent or plain criminal, see http://www.theagitator.com/archives/cat_paramilitary_police_raids.php)

Just think and apply logic, it is very simple.

Gun control creates crime. An armed society is a polite society.

If you think gun control works so well and will protect you, Please move to some blighted neighbourhood and place big signs in your fron lawn saying “this is a gun and drug free zone”. Let’ see how long before you are burglarized.

BTW, yes, guns allowed on school grounds would reduce the kind of incidents you listed, see this for example http://timlambert.org/guns/appalachian/nd/tackle/gun/222.htmlhttp://www.newswithviews.com/Johnston/patrick4.htm


——————————————-
#94788 by ardee on 8/14 at 4:59 am
(458 comments total)
Columbine
9-11 (all four planes)
Virginia Tech
Springfield, Oregon (Kip Kinkel)
Ron Paul is right!

Paolo I have never been a fan of your deductive loguic , or rather the lack thereof. Your absurd little list is another example of why I believe you to be a precocious high school student showing offtfor the adults.

Do you suggest that guns in Columbine high school would have been a solution to that tragedy? Or at VT? What on earth sort of society do you envision, the one you learned while watching cowboy movies? The one in which children are not collateral damage when fools like you start shooting?

Ron Paul is certainly right, far, far right.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 14, 2007 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

94829 by RickinSF on 8/14 at 8:12 am: “...Ernest Gann mentioned, briefly, in “Fate is the Hunter,” that as an airline pilot he was supposed to carry a revolver because he carried the US Mail. This would be the years just before and after WWII…”

Yes, I was once offered a job by a US mining company in a SW Pacific location which was somewhat primitive. Only I was told that I was expected to carry a handgun at all times.

I have learned that people respond better to more positive incentives and that fear engenders all kinds of problems. I didn’t take up the job because I could see that the company had more or less already engendered a climate of fear and disrespect on site.

That was dangerous enough but that is also what we now have in our cities and so-called civilization. Feeling secure doesn’t come from pointing guns at each other. What is worse now is that police think they can get respect from threatening citizens.

Report this

By Mr. Mike, August 14, 2007 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Abolish the Dept. Of Education! One only needs Federal Leadership in that area if they believe that their vision of education should trump over all others and, that the American people are too stupid to determine what a good education is. After all, those with higher degrees are little more that credentialed cogs in the bureaucratic maze.
Whether it’s Bush’s Neo-Cons with “No Child Left Behind”, or the Democrats getting in there with the idea that “that’s our law now!” We know that as long as there is a Dept. of Ed., we’ll have some new boss every few years to tell us what to do. Oh and, don’t forget that Corporations will have their say whether Republicans, or Democrats are in power.

Ron Paul is right to support the Department of Educations demise.

Report this

By RickinSF, August 14, 2007 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

Ernest Gann mentioned, briefly, in “Fate is the Hunter,” that as an airline pilot he was supposed to carry a revolver because he carried the US Mail. This would be the years just before and after WWII.

Report this

By One Little Victory, August 14, 2007 at 9:04 am Link to this comment

If per capita private gun ownership meant increased security, then the population in the United States would be the most secure in the world. But we are not.

There is something very wrong with our society - it is the “Me, Me, Me” mantra that places individual rights above collective security and collective rights. They seem to “get” this in Canada, Britain, and many other first world nations, while we remain in denial as long as we “get ours”.

Report this

By A Radical Whig in Chattanooga, August 14, 2007 at 6:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A “Progressive” who takes Dr. Ron Paul’s remarks out of context might indeed find his remarks unsettling. However, do the research. “Roe v Wade”, for example, was a Federal Court Ruling overturning a state law. Dr. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has maintained that such issues are indeed the proper venue for the “States” and the “people”. What would Dr. Ron Paul push for as President? The Federal Government would no longer fund abortion at any level, nor would abortions be performed, for example, in military hospitals. He would push Congress to use the power granted it in the Constitution to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Courts over state laws and state court rulings regarding abortion. What would be the effect of this? Some states would heavily restrict abortion. Others wouldn’t restrict it at all.
  Regarding the “guns on airplanes” issue, I trust the Airlines to better set that policy. The “no guns” and “cooperate with the hijackers” policy directly enabled 9/11. If the Airlines, for example, wish to allow their pilots to armed, it should be up to them. If they wish to extend that to the police, or even to “conceal carry” licensed customers, the effects wouldn’t have been worse than what happened on 9/11.
  “Progressives” should be “Constitutionalists” also. You would just have to get your programs at the State level, where the costs can’t be concealed by inflating the money supply or running up a $9 Trillion dollar debt. As long as you live in another state than I do, there’d be no reason for us to squabble (I’m a mix of paleoconservative and paleolibertarian); after all, it wouldn’t be my state that you were messing up (and you could say that I wasn’t messing up your state).

Report this

By ardee, August 14, 2007 at 5:59 am Link to this comment

Columbine

9-11 (all four planes)

Virginia Tech

Springfield, Oregon (Kip Kinkel)

Ron Paul is right!

Paolo I have never been a fan of your deductive loguic , or rather the lack thereof. Your absurd little list is another example of why I believe you to be a precocious high school student showing offtfor the adults.

Do you suggest that guns in Columbine high school would have been a solution to that tragedy? Or at VT? What on earth sort of society do you envision, the one you learned while watching cowboy movies? The one in which children are not collateral damage when fools like you start shooting?

Ron Paul is certainly right, far, far right.

Report this

By ardee, August 14, 2007 at 5:54 am Link to this comment

#94712 by Ray Harmon on 8/13 at 7:13 pm

Grow the fuck up or do not respond to my posts.

I have absolutely no fear of guns having already explained that I own many of them. What I fear are morons like you without the emotional maturity to understand that guns kill indiscriminately. That people like you think weapons are like video games, no one really gets hurt you simply reset and begin again.

Gun ownership is not a right, despite the misinterpretation of the right wing. It is a serious priviledge and comes with a sense of responsibility undemonstrated by any of you freaks. Until you have stood over an enemy you are responsible for murdering dont fucking talk to me about your right to own and carry weapons. You havent one single freaking clue.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 14, 2007 at 3:27 am Link to this comment

#94754 by cyrena on 8/13 at 11:27 pm: “...#94749 by ~B~ on 8/13 at 9:56 pm • This is what America has become. A nation where false claims are not challenged…...”
#Icyrena: “...t’s like having to learn another language, only maybe even more difficult, because it means “unlearning” the stuff that we’ve been fed for 7 long years. ...........for those in greater denial, it’s a difficult task, and becomes even more difficult as socio-economic conditions deteriorate. ........they engage in avoidance, and just don’t allow themselves any awareness of our reality, because it’s all just too much for them to deal with. .......Then there are others that grab at straws, or jump on anything that seems to be what they want to hear…”


The “R-COMPLEX”: down-shifting and human stupidity….....!!! How to achieve emotional control, etc:-

Quote: ” “Emotions involve the human brain at all levels. To oversimplify, the oldest brain does the body resetting, the middle brain gives the orders, and the new brain provides complex and detailed analysis of the situation and gives permission for or inhibits the emotion. But the new brain, the cerebral cortex and its associated pathways, does not always win. It can be temporarily shunted out of the decision making as older, simpler circuits take over. A suitable term for this is ‘downshifting.’.....

When we downshift, full use of our new brains is suspended and more control is given to our lower brains. One can readily see how this can become problematic. When we become upset or are in a negative emotional state, we turn over the controls to our lower brains and the consequence is something we’ve all experienced many times: we can’t think clearly, our thinking becomes muddled, as if someone has thrown a bucket of mud on the windshield of our car.

Under any kind of threat we tend to downshift. The reason for this should be clear: in many serious, threatening situations we are required to take immediate action. We confront a wild bear and we make an instantaneous decision to run. The lower brains work well in these kinds of situations; they were designed to make quick decisions. So downshifting is an automatic protection mechanism. It enables us to shift to more primitive and dependable response patterns.

Unfortunately, downshifting has an obvious downside. When we downshift, we lose full use of our new brain, the neo-cortex. Our ability to think straight seems to vanish. The problem is that we continue to downshift even when it is not necessary or even beneficial to do so….... By learning how to counteract or prevent ourselves from downshifting, we can greatly increase our personal power and our control over our emotions. An effective method for doing exactly this is the freeze-frame technique discussed below….”  http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl12.shtml

Report this

By Mike, August 14, 2007 at 1:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What’s the point of taking my time to writecomments when they’re not accepted by the moderators?

I can’t remember what I wrote so I’ll just move on and respond to the latest comment making the ridiculous assertion that free markets don’t permit a democracy.


Free markets are simply the government not preventing free citizens from engaging in no-coercive business activities.  That is ALL free markets are.  People should be free to create any kind of voluntary business arrangement they want, including creating a corporation, and engaging in any non-coercive business activities they choose.  What kind of socialist dogma has made you think that restricting this kind of basic freedom is good? 

The only reason we have a democracy is that the theory is that a democratically elected government is less likely to allow for coercion of individuals, and therefore most create a free society.  For you to say that free markets and democracy is like saying that freedom is incompatible with the the institution we created to ensure freedom.

Ron Paul is the only answer.  Since civil rights and affirmative action programs, which trounced on individual liberty in order to give blacks preferential treatment, were enacted, black incarceration rates have exploded.  Incarceration rates for blacks are the highest they’ve ever been in history, far higher than they were back in 1960.

Report this

By Sam, August 14, 2007 at 12:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The government must stop financing abortions as it must stop financing all medical procedures.  The government shouldn’t be involved in the business of medicine, and it must extricate itself from this great profession.  It should neither finance medical procedures, nor deny them.

On the status of abortion—it is not the murder of a human being, but the destruction of a fetus.  A fetus is not a human being who possesses inalienable rights to his or her life, liberty, pursuit of happiness or private property—rights that are protected by government force.  A fetus is human tissue that, over time, and left alone, will eventually develop into a baby.  But as a fetus, it has no such rights to its life. 

The view that a fetus is equivalent to a baby is a mistake that religious ideology makes because it claims that a supernatural deity has bestowed the spirit of Man on the fetus, and we earthly humans have no business interfering with that divine act. 

If the death of a fetus is equivalent to the death of a human being - a baby - then we should have funerals for miscarriages; we should charge abortionists with murder and charge the women patients as murderesses as well, with serious prison time—regardless if they became pregnant through rape or incest, or child molestation.

I say keep the government out of the medical profession and let doctors and their patients decide what is in the best health interests of the patient, not what is in the best “interests” of the fetus growing within her.  There is a human being who possesses inalienable rights to her life, liberty & pursuit of happiness, protectable by the state.  She is the pregnant woman whose rights are not in competition with the alleged “rights” of another.  The government’s job, if it is truly pro-life, is to protect the woman from being interfered with in her quest for an abortion.

Report this

By richard kobzey, August 14, 2007 at 12:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A myriad of minds scramble to find the “right” leader to deliver them from an impending Fourth Reich.

What you American NSA/CIA vulnerable children need is an external (non US entity) to threaten only the President’s life, but express and prove genuine love for the American people.  You need noise that cannot be used as an example of terrorism against the People.  You need an International Court proceeding that is brought about by an entity that your “king” has no jurisdiction over.

Consider the fact that there is NO other way to come against the evil lawlessness of your fraudulent Jesus-card-playing dictator.  Must ya’ll be forced into violence, as a last resort?

NO!

Report this

By cyrena, August 14, 2007 at 12:27 am Link to this comment

#94749 by ~B~ on 8/13 at 9:56 pm

•  Surely it must be time for some realistic approaches to our problems. Guns do not protect rights, rich people do not solve social issues, and free markets do not foster healthy democracies. These are the truths of the debate. They are never spoken

•  This is what America has become. A nation where false claims are not challenged, in fact most often the are repeated - continuously. What better way to make something seem true? Have we lost our collective minds? Can we not see what happens in front of our own eyes?


~B~

Thanks so much for the great words. I’m going to see that it is circulated, even though I’ve admittedly been trying to make these same points myself, for a while now. But, so many are still caught up in the false claims that have been so intentionally repeated, and for so very long now, that it seems they can’t make the switch. It troubles me greatly, to see my so many (my own loved ones included) fall victim to it.

It’s like having to learn another language, only maybe even more difficult, because it means “unlearning” the stuff that we’ve been fed for 7 long years. It might be easier for someone who’s been in a coma for the past 6 years, and hasn’t had the alternative reality mass media fed to them for all of that time. Then it would just be a matter of catching them up to speed.

But, for those in greater denial, it’s a difficult task, and becomes even more difficult as socio-economic conditions deteriorate. It’s really got the senior and nearing senior folks in quite a psychological dilemma. So they engage in avoidance, and just don’t allow themselves any awareness of our reality, because it’s all just too much for them to deal with.

Then there are others that grab at straws, or jump on anything that seems to be what they want to hear, (like Ron Paul) because in an fairytale or movieland world, this might be possible. It always sounds good on paper, and in theory, but simply doesn’t have a connection to the realities of today.

Yet, our history has proven this, over and over again. And you’re right. We ignore it at our peril. We should see that we already HAVE.

Still, since at least some of us do realize that we’ve lost our collective minds, I’m hoping we can still help others get theirs back.

Report this

By ~B~, August 13, 2007 at 10:56 pm Link to this comment

Why are so many commenters clinging to gun rights while they have sat back and allowed nearly the entire remainder of the Bill of Rights to be abolished? Weren’t the guns to protect your rights? I guess that argument for gun rights is pretty moot.

Guns will do no good in the hands of a people who know not what to defend. You sit at home with a house full of guns and let the government run amok - as long as the cable isn’t damaged so you get your TV and internet?

This illustrates my point about Ron Paul, his writings lead me to the conclusion that he isn’t being realistic though I do appreciate his idealistic goals. Just as guns did nothing to protect our rights, his belief in morality and humans exercising such is similarly flawed. Both assume that individuals will make the proper decisions. Has not history herself borne out a different result? We ignore her at our peril.

Surely it must be time for some realistic approaches to our problems. Guns do not protect rights, rich people do not solve social issues, and free markets do not foster healthy democracies. These are the truths of the debate. They are never spoken. What do we hear? Guns are for protection of our families and rights. The government has no right to touch an individual’s personal property so that the wealthy will be able to spend the money they save on their favorite charities and this is to replace government “socialist” programs. Free markets are the basis of American Democracy.

This is what America has become. A nation where false claims are not challenged, in fact most often the are repeated - continuously. What better way to make something seem true? Have we lost our collective minds? Can we not see what happens in front of our own eyes?

B

http://b-political.blogspot.com/

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

So, I know I’m already beginning to sound like I was in the lead-up to the Coup of 2000, when well-intended wanna-be-on-the-bandwagon types were telling me that they were gonna vote for george bush, because they thought he was “sincere”. In reality, he appealed to the ignorant, by “talking at their level” in that fake cowboy accent. So the “boys in Lubbuck” could understand him, according to george.  Well, he was sincere all right. And, I’m sure Ron Paul is as well. That doesn’t relieve me not one little bit.
======================================================

Ron Paul is actually from Pennsylvania. He was in the Air Force during the Vietnam war and ended up stationed in Teas so he stayed there.

As for sincerity, his voting record is absolutely consistent. People that fell for Bush’s rhetoric probably deserve what they’re getting. Sadly the rest of us are just stuck with it.

As for the poor people living in tent cities? As long as we offer them a welfare state, they’ll keep sneaking in.

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 10:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rape is never a choice either, and rarely is incest a choice. Yet, over and over again, women and girls become pregnant as a result. So, for those who would deny these women or girls the choice of terminating that pregancy, (because it’s murder) should be prepared to financially commit to the raising of that child. (via tax dollars?) But alas, Ron Paul doesn’t believe in that either.
======================================================
He says his mind was made up when he saw beathing fetus chucked into a metal waste can during his residency. I can see how that might stick with a person.

But I’m pro-choice, because I think that the argument usually ends up being that pregnancy is somehow a punishment for having sex whilst female. (I also think that particular hateful attitude is one of the main reasons that girls end up having abortions. Funny how that works out.)

The bottom line is that women will have abortions even if they are not legal. They might as well have access to safe procedures in clean facilities.

Report this

By Angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 10:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In regard to the abortion issue, in 1970 I thought that it was better to make it legal rather than to have dangerous back-alley abortions. At that time, it was to have been in the first trimester of pregnancy.  I would never go that route, but thought that other women should have that choice. Now I’m finding that for friends that had abortions in the ‘70’s, it was traumatic and they never forget and wonder about the child they never had.
======================================================

And how many of those women would have been dead if they didn’t have access to a real doctor. That’s what the whole issue boils down to, no matter when you think life begins.

Suddenly it seems that there’s a whole generation of people who were pro-abortion rights during their child-bearing years but are now suddenly anti-choice when it no longer applies to them.

It’s quite condescending to imply that young women don’t really know what they want and so they somehow should not be taken seriously.

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 10:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So, I intended no disrespect, and I think it’s real admirable that he doesn’t utilize the insurance benefits that are provided to all Congressional employees.
=======================================================

And that snotty little “must be nice to be able to afford a pacemaker?” line wasn’t disrespect either? The man refused to accept money from the government when he was an OB/GYN. He delivered babies for free rather than accept the money that the government “steals” from the worker bees. Agree or not with his politics, he has far more character and integrity than any of us on this board.

And by the way - he doesn’t participate in the Congressional Pension either. I’ll bet your candidate does.

He’s never voted for a Congressional pay increase. I’ll bet yours did.

Shall we go on?

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 10:09 pm Link to this comment

#94726 by 911truthdotorg on 8/13 at 8:14 pm

I can’t believe the choices we have to pick from.
So very sad.

If it’s anyone else but these two, I’m writing in Mickey Mouse.
========================

911truthdog,

You brought a out louder with the comment on Mickey, if only because famertx said the same thing about most of his neighbors in Texas. He specifically quoted a guy who said he would only vote republican, and that yes, if Mickey Mouse was the only republican on the ticket, he’d vote for him.

And, according to famertx, the guy was dead serious. I believe it, because I lived there myself for 17 years.

So, just keep that in mind. This is the same state that brought you Dick Bush, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzoles, and I could name other horrors. Also keep in mind that this ideal system, isn’t the least bit ideal, for the have-nots in that state. Matter of fact, they live 4th world existences, tent cities under the freeways, and abject poverty is rampant, because the system just doesn’t recognize those that are less fortunate.

So, I know I’m already beginning to sound like I was in the lead-up to the Coup of 2000, when well-intended wanna-be-on-the-bandwagon types were telling me that they were gonna vote for george bush, because they thought he was “sincere”. In reality, he appealed to the ignorant, by “talking at their level” in that fake cowboy accent. So the “boys in Lubbuck” could understand him, according to george.

Well, he was sincere all right. And, I’m sure Ron Paul is as well. That doesn’t relieve me not one little bit.

Besides, you’ve still got time. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.

Report this

By AngelaTC, August 13, 2007 at 10:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ardee, who just can’t resist calling people names: For the gun nuts. I own several firearms…. We are both unanimous in our horror at the suggestion that civilians be armed whether pilots or not. You are free to spout whatever about whichever.
=======================================================

So you trust the pilots ( most of whom are military trained) to fly the plane but not with a gun? Gee - which is more complicated, I wonder?

I would give you the right to stay off planes. Seems like we’d both feel safe then, right?

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 10:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

and the fact that “the right to abortion” cannot be amended into the Constitution and not be a “federal issue” which was the oxymoron part of your argument. The issue of abortion is not a legal or Constitutional question. Period.

======================================================

You are wrong. Anything can be amended into the Constitution.

I do agree that it is not a federal issue, but the Constitution clearly states that items not specifically relegated to the Fed by the Constitution are matters to be decided by the states.

Therefore RvW is wrong, and the issue should be decided by the states.

And the “right to privacy” isn’t actually a specific right, though perhaps it should be. It’s merely an interpretation of the 9th Amendment.

Doctor . patient confidentiality isn’t a right either. So far, it’s been a provelege but the courts narrow that windowalmost daily.

Again, with a national healthcare database looming and cameras appearing on every street corner, you’re pretty niave if you don’t think that the courts will soon find that we patients should have had reasonable cause to doubt that we have privacy.

Report this

By AngelaTC, August 13, 2007 at 9:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

yezbok drahcir on 8/13 at 6:04 pm
According to http://www.2decide.com/table.htm Ron Paul is against Internet Neutrality. I have a real problem with that.
=======================================================

But perhaps you do not realize why he voted agasinst it. He says that once you allow the government to regulate it, then they will regulate it.  The federal government has no business regulating our internet providers, any more than they should regulate our content.  The free market will work it out - it always does if it’s allowed to.

Report this

By Mike, August 13, 2007 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

————————————-
Just where exactly in the 10 minutes of this speech did Ron Paul say he wants to overturn abortion because of states rights?  He brought up abortion on two separate occasions and each time he stated his personal belief about abortion, quoting “right to life is not a choice…”. 

***

His seems to care more for the fetus than the human.  Like some many believe - once you leave the birth canal your on your own.
————————————-

He had 10 minutes to cover many topics, so naturally he couldn’t go into depth on all the legal reasoning for over-turning Roe vs Wade.  He’s talked about it in other places, and explained that Roe vs Wade is federal over-reach. 

——————-
I also find it interesting that candidate said the “government should protect lives” but then later imply with his call to end welfare that the government should not be protecting lives.
——————-

That’s because you don’t understand the proper role of government.  The role of government is to protect individuals from coercion and violence perpretrated by other individuals (acts of man), it’s not the role of government to protect individuals from starvation, disease, and storms (‘acts of God’ in legal terms).

There is a good reason for this.  If government gives people the right to eat food, then it would need to force someone else to provide that food, thereby violating one person’s rights to give rights to someone else.  You only have rights to things that don’t require someone else providing them to you.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, August 13, 2007 at 9:30 pm Link to this comment

Regarding “guns on planes.”

As recently as the 1960’s passengers routinely took guns on planes when they flew to hunting trips, stowing them in the overhead bins (usually with help from the stewardesses). I can think of no cases in which these guns were used for nefarious purposes.

Up into the 1980’s, pilots of planes carrying US mail were required to carry sidearms. Again—no cases I know of of those firearms being used for nefarious purposes.

The current, laughably inept airline “security” system—in which security is pawned off on federal government bureaucrats—should be replaced by one in which airlines take responsibility (and legal liability) for the safety of their flights.

I have at least one suggestion: how about the airlines giving a special discount (say—fifty percent, to make it REALLY motivating) to any police officer who wants to fly, on CONDITION he carry his side arm (with frangible ammo supplied gratis by the airline)?

Maybe the same discount could be given to off-duty or retired military officers.

This way, George Bush’s “terrists” would never know if any, or how many, passengers are armed and ready to really screw up their fine airline “terrist” act. No matter how well they planned, their box-cutters just wouldn’t be of much use against, say, three or four police officers and military officers with guns.

Of course, all pilots (most of whom are former military and are thoroughly familiar with weapons and tactics) should be armed. Those who are former military and achieved officer status should be given automatic clearance.

Please observe: ALL THE WORST “terrist” acts occurred in places in which the victims were LEGALLY DISARMED. Are you starting to get a clue? Here’s a partial list:

Columbine

9-11 (all four planes)

Virginia Tech

Springfield, Oregon (Kip Kinkel)

Ron Paul is right!

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, August 13, 2007 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment

After calming down and much thought, if it came down to Ron Paul or ANY of the other candidates, except Dennis Kucinich, I’d vote for Paul.

At least he wants us out of Iraq and will reign
in the Dept of “Offense”.

I can’t believe the choices we have to pick from.
So very sad.

If it’s anyone else but these two, I’m writing in Mickey Mouse.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition, America: Freedom to Fascism

Report this

By Brandon Stockli, August 13, 2007 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The responsibility of protecting airline passengers is that of the airline companies as well as the passengers themselves.  It should be up to the airline companies whether or not firearms are allowed on planes, not the beauracrats in Washington.  People are witnessing everyday how ineffective and irresponsible government control over airline security has been. Not to mention their complete disrespect for american people.

Report this

By badmedia, August 13, 2007 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Actually, if you pay attention to what he says, then it would actually be up to the airlines to decide on how to best protect you.  Rather than relying on the government to do so - which by measures so far isn’t doing so good and is causing tons of problems.

If you understand property rights, then you understand that businesses also have the right NOT to allow these things.  So, if you didn’t want to fly on a plane as such, then you would just choose an airline who wouldn’t allow them on their planes.  I’m guessing most planes would not allow guns, but knives and stuff would probably be ok, and would have been more than enough protection on 9/11.

So if this upsets you, then I think you are misunderstanding.  Ron Paul would never force the airlines to allow this, but he also isn’t in favor of forcing them not to allow them either to the strict standards they have.

There is a logical and reasonable explanation.  Just seems like everyone is so used to the government deciding 1 way or another for people, they don’t recognize when someone just wants to leave that choice and freedom to the people.

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 13, 2007 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

@ardee

Stop acting like an intellectually dishonest jerk.

I don’t care if you are scared of guns or not, Ron Paul was talking about talking about airlines taking the rightful responsibility of protecting their customers.

Sounds to me you are simply a devout believer in government as a solution.

Congratulations, defend that record then, don’t blame freedom, because we don’t have it, yet.

Report this

By republicanSScareme, August 13, 2007 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Some of Ron Paul’s ideas seem whacko at first, like eliminatinmg the Departments of Energy, Education, the Federal Reserve System, IRS, and other things.  But when you think about them, these ideas aren’t whacko at all.  The Dept. of Education has been a disaster.  The Dept. of Energy has been taken over by the oil companies.

Our corrupt banking system probably does need to be overhauled.  Wall Street needs better policing with the interests of the public kept in mind.

Roe vs Wade?  I know Dr. Paul is against abortion, buthe does not believe in outlawing it.  In effect, free choice is the result.

Report this

By ted tyson, August 13, 2007 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i am a liberal democrat.  paul was talking about PILOTS carrying guns, not passengers.  those saying otherwise need to stop actng so silly.  and paul does not profess that he would be a dictator, so a social safety net and other government programs(provided they are ACCOUNTABLE to the people) would still be possible in a paul presidency.  a libertarian believes in the input of the congressional branch.  a progressive legislature could also shape policy and find a balance between these different ideas.  the fed would be called out for the fraud that it is, the 2.3 million missing from the pentagon would perhaps be accounted for, the difficult questions about 911 would perhaps be asked.  i’m still waiting for my fellow liberals to have the courage to ask them(or even acknowledge their existence.)  but i won’t hold my breath.

Report this

By ardee, August 13, 2007 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment

For the gun nuts.

I own several firearms, including an AR 15 , a 1911 Colt, a 30-40 Krag, a 30-06 scope mounted, a twelve guage automatic shotgun and others. My son in law is a federal marshall who flies routinely armed. We have both had extensive firearms training, he with the Delta Force Rangers and I with the 101st Airborne. We are both unanimous in our horror at the suggestion that civilians be armed whether pilots or not. You are free to spout whatever about whichever.

Report this

By Drew, August 13, 2007 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I support Ron Paul for President although I don’t agree with everything he believes.  He’s certainly passionate about his beliefs so I can understand him calling Rove V. Wade “that horrible ruling.”  I’m prochoice but I agree with Dr. Paul.  It was a bad ruling, it is an issue for the states to decide.  If you don’t like you state’s abortion laws then move to another state.  I don’t think that the author of this piece can assume that because of Dr. Paul’s statement that he’ll lose support from the left(what ever that is).  Many people on the left like Ron Paul because of his honesty, strong anti-war stance, pro liberty message, his record for defending civil liberties, and/or his open government views.  Ron Paul is long from gone from this race for the Republican nomination.  He has so many things in his favor; a loud and loyal group of netroots supporters, the financial support to last until the convention, he’s the only ant-war candidate, the only pro liberty candidate, he’s more honest than any other candidate, he practices what he preaches, he’s a veteran, he’s a MD, and he’s been right about everything that matters in recent memory.

Report this

By yezbok drahcir, August 13, 2007 at 7:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

According to http://www.2decide.com/table.htm Ron Paul is against Internet Neutrality. I have a real problem with that.

Also, I would rather go with Democrat Dennis Kucinich because, unlike Republican Ron Paul, he is opposed to drilling in the ANWR.

Don’t be fooled by the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Report this

By W i l l, August 13, 2007 at 7:04 pm Link to this comment

cyrena…I’m the one that cited it as a thing that must have been on his mind. Not him.
And must we continue to be a society that so easily finds fault in every little thing? I go nuts half the time being a natural born cynic! Weigh the negative, fine…but see the good!
Do you want the federal empire dictating your life…or do you want you dictating your life?
Personally…I see the office of the President as a relic. One person with legal jurisdiction over 300+ million is fundamentally unacceptable.

Report this

By Sawbux, August 13, 2007 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

I am all for his position on getting rid of the IRS. I would vote for him on this issue alone.

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 13, 2007 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment

@cyrena

Fair enough. Of course I disagree on you defining Paul as the “danger” and I accept your opposition as honest, not vindictive.

I’m drinking a beer in your honor right now and hoping things will work out for all of us.

Peace,
Ray

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul doesn’t participate in the Congressional pension or medical plan, so don’t try to find a hypocrite where none exists.

I didn’t say he was a hypocrite. Matter of fact, I said I appreciated that he was candid about an ideology that would be disastrous if it became policy for the entire country. All too often, (as we can see from the years of misery we’ve suffered since 2000)voters select their elected leaders based on the lies that they’ve told during their campaigns. And, lots of people are unaware, or can’t see through this, and are therefore bitterly dismayed, when they look at somebody like the Shrub, and realize how stupid they were for not seeing through that.

There is no danger on that, with Ron Paul. He has let us know.

The comment about his wife was a response to WIll, who felt that we should “give him a break” or “consider what he said in his campaign” because he may have been under some stress related to the fact that his wife was in a delicate surgery at the time.

I’m suggesting that really isn’t our problem, just like my boss would tell me that it really wasn’t the customers problem, if I happened to be having a bad day, or a stressful time. In fact, my boss might suggest that I shouldn’t be there, if I had these other distractions. I would say the same for Mr. Paul.

So, I intended no disrespect, and I think it’s real admirable that he doesn’t utilize the insurance benefits that are provided to all Congressional employees. That’s really nice of him. Save the taxpayers a few bucks.

But, for whatever it’s worth, he won’t become the president any time soon. That’s all that’s important. Actually, I don’t he could even carry his home state.

So, we’re safe from him, but I don’t know about the rest of his gang.

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 13, 2007 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

@cyrena:
“...you’re not gonna find a commercial airline pilot who will be OK with any passenger having a firearm.”

Get it straight, we are talking about airlines taking
the rightful responsibility of protecting their customers.

Irrational fears of firearms aside, the danger of the feds stepping into “protect us” is a joke.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment

#94661 by brainstorm on 8/13 at 3:47 pm

•  cyrena, you are the clueless one. Airliners can take much more than a few bullets and still fly just fine. One example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
Actually brainstorm, in this particular area, I’m not quite as “clueless” as you might thing. I’m aware of this aloha airlines flight though, (so I didn’t read the piece) Would you be surprised to know that it isn’t the ONLY example?

Nope. Matter of fact, it used to happen routinely…commercial flights (at the time, the ones flying the Latin and South American routes between here and there, used to return to the states with multiple bullet holes in the bellies of the aircrafts. The were routinely shot at from various locations by the various guerillas who used to dominate the drug traffic in those Central American countries..this was back in the 80’s and 90’s.

For the most part, it didn’t take any airplanes out of the sky, (although they were an old workhorse airplane that most carriers have retired…the old boeing 727) The “bullets in the bellies” were rarely enough to create a problem, because that section of the aircraft, (aside from a small section near the nose) is not pressurized. Still, would you really choose to fly under those conditions? Well, it didn’t bother the airline, at least as long as it didn’t damage any of the cargo, because the airline industry makes far more money on that package sitting in the cargo hold, than it does on you. Which is why, on those occasions when weather or other conditions might warrant a weight restriction, they would leave you at the gate, in order to put on a piece of freight. They do have their profit priorities.

But yeah, there are in fact many occasions when aircraft have survived bullet holes and other such “incidents”. Then there are the times when they don’t. Fortunately for all of us, people like you don’t get to decide. At the end of the day, the Captain/Dispatcher make the collective operative decisions, and you’re not gonna find a commercial airline pilot who will be OK with any passenger having a firearm. He or she might not care if you wanna take such chances, but not if they’re in the same ship with you.

Just not like in the movies my friend. Or even wikipedia. And, when you’ve personally witnessed as many of the after-effects of airline disasters as I have, you might be a bit more cautious in your own thinking.

Or, you could buy your own plane, and pretty much do whatever you want to. Just don’t expect to play John Wayne on the last frontier. If you show up with a firearm at at US airport, your ass is going to jail.

Might be fun though eh? Just to see what it’s like?

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 13, 2007 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

@cyrena
“Matter of fact, many posters here, have been saying the same thing, and for many years longer than Congressman Paul.”

LOL give me a break. Ron Paul has been advocating the restoration of the Constitutional Republic a lot longer than most of the people on this site have been alive.

You actually use Katrina as an example to support your argument for more government help?  Wow, that’s ballsy. In my mind, I think people would have been far better off without such “help”.

Galveston Texas got wiped out in 1900 by a hurricane, six thousand people died but Galveston residents rebuilt without federal “help” and came out of it just fine. The sea wall they built to block future storm surges still stands and protects the city.

Regarding his wife Carol and medical care:

That snide remark about Ron Paul “instead of being in the hospital with his wife, he was campaigning in Iowa” that’s pretty cheap to make light of a personal decision you or I know nothing about.

Ron Paul doesn’t participate in the Congressional pension or medical plan, so don’t try to find a hypocrite where none exists.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

Will wrote this”

....“And regarding anything he said Saturday evening…keep in mind, his wife was in recovery that day from having a frig’n pacemaker installed in her chest. Sheesh people!...”
==========================

We’re supposed to keep this in mind, that instead of being in the hospital with his wife, he was campaigning in Iowa. So, if he gets to be president, we should be OK if he says and does stupid stuff, particularly is there’s a “family emergency”? Right.
My former managers/customes would have been just fine with that. 

Meantime, must be nice to be able to afford a pacemaker. I wonder if his government medical insurance covers that? Yep. I think it does. Too bad the rest of us can’t manage even a trip to the dentist.

Seems like it might be better if he just doesn’t try to be a president, if he’s so easily distracted by everyday things such as family medical issues.

Report this

By W i l l, August 13, 2007 at 5:22 pm Link to this comment

Hellz…a re-boot of the American Constitution is precisely what this nation needs!

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment

#94659 by Ray Harmon on 8/13 at 3:44 pm


•  ....“Each one represents a way that the constitutional basis for our government has been violated. A founding principle once compromised is simply broken and can be further ignored.”...

A big AMEN to this!! This is something that has created major nightmares for so many of us, because it is 100% true. Matter of fact, many posters here, have been saying the same thing, and for many years longer than Congressman Paul.

For every breach that has occured, from the Patriot Act, to the legalization of torture, to the warrentless spying, to the illegal invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation in violation of all international law, to the MCA, etc, etc. Oh yes. We’ve definitely noticed. As a result, nearly every politician running on both sides of the aisle,  have made this promise…to restore our Constitution, and repair all of these breaches.

•  Congressman Paul wants to reverse this course by repairing the breaches inflicted over the last six or seven decades.
==========================================
Now, this would sound the same as the others, if we weren’t talking about reversing legal precedent over the past 60 or 70 years. Could that really be what you mean that Dr. Paul wants to do?

That sounds even more radical than the gangsters we have in there now. Very scary. We have suffered an extremist radical agenda for 7 years now. The last thing we need is another one.

Nope, the honeymoon is definitely over. I do appreciate that he was honest enough to speak on his ideology, instead of trying to play all sides of the fence, which is the popular tactic for the average politician. But no, we have to get back to a measure of balance, but we have to do it in forward, not backward motion.

Now if Texas were ever to secede the Union, and officially become their own independent state, (which is the way they always have anyway) then maybe they could elect him as President of Texas. The rest of us don’t want that though. It’s a world in which only the independently wealthy can exist.

Kind of like the good people of New Orleans in Katrina…you’re on your own folks. That’s the way they do it in Texas too.

For most Americans these days, that is a most horrific thought.

Report this

By W i l l, August 13, 2007 at 5:02 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul is a candidate with one main intention…to put a tight ass choke collar on the federal empire and allow people to govern themselves.
He is anti-abortion, but by no means has he indicated he’d interfere with a woman deciding what, for her, is the proper cource of action to take regarding her own body. Which is very much consistent with how he has voted along matter regarding abortion.
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999) http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

And regarding anything he said Saturday evening…keep in mind, his wife was in recovery that day from having a frig’n pacemaker installed in her chest. Sheesh people!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 13, 2007 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment

94646 by Ray Harmon on 8/13 at 3:08 pm: “...@Douglas Chalmers: “Again, we are being led to believe that “guns on planes” is a genuine issue instead of a distraction to keep us from the real questions. How stupid to be thus fooled by RP.”

The 2nd Amendment is a big issue for about 64 million Americans, so I don’t agree with your statement…...
You have to decide if you want the rule of law or the rule of men. One has a method and process containing checks and balance, the other sways with the winds politics and can easily wreak havoc….”

RH, you don’t seem to be able to decide if you want “the rule of law or the rule of men”. What do you think “rule of law” really is if not the rule of men? In fact, this problem is all about MEN ruling and not WOMEN.

Given the Abortion issue in particular, the supreme court certainly “sways with the winds and politics” and is wreaking havoc in womens’ lives. So much for men debating this topic! Men making the laws for women is all the worse.

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 13, 2007 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment

@cyrena
“The only way this could ever be considered as any state policy, (federal or local) is if a state entity is paying for the procedure, or if the state plans to pay for the health and well being of the potential fetus, at least until the age of 18. At least that would be true for those who don’t see abortion as a choice, but rather as a murder.”
———————————————————

Exactly. If you see it as access to medical care, than it clearly would be an issue of choice that would be uphold on a state/local level.

However, if you are on the other side of this, the solution is still the same.

People who view abortion as nothing short of murder have to realize that murder (rightfully) isn’t a federal crime. The states enforce criminal law, not the feds.

As for you scenarios regarding pregnancy: incest, rape etc. Outside of those situations, pregnancy is preventable and a matter of personal responsibility.

Even though you are pro choice, surely you can understand why why people who consider abortion the equivalent of murder would take issue will killing an innocent fetus even in those scenarios. But, we aren’t talking about the common reality we are talking exceptions to the rule in regards to rape or incest.

The point is…with such a controversial issue that divides many sincere people, why not let freedom work it out?

Why not allow people to gravitate towards the government they want and don’t force one view point on the whole of the nation?

Report this

By brainstorm, August 13, 2007 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

cyrena wrote:
===========================
No, I wasn’t kidding. The airliners may indeed be able to “fly themselves”, (they can even land themselves in a pinch) but they’re likely to fall out of the sky with the help of “shoots fired in the cabin”. I mean really. Do you think a pressurized aircraft at 37,000 feet can really sustain a shoot-out in the fashion of the OK Corral? Do you have a clue to how much is involved with making sure that such an event DOES NOT occur, when there are armed passengers or crew members on board? Do you have a clue to the fact that all the modern technology in the world won’t keep that airplane in the air if a few bullets go astray?
==========================

cyrena, you are the clueless one. Airliners can take much more than a few bullets and still fly just fine. One example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 13, 2007 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment

@One Little Victory:

The thing about the Constitution, is if you ignore or violate one part of it, you weaken all of it.

The rule of law is either sacrosanct or it’s simply the whim of whomever is in power.

Ron Paul uses numerous examples as evidence of the undermining of our Constitutional Republic. Abortion is but one issue.
The War another.
The Patriot Act another.
The monetary system another.
Corporatism, yet another.
And, so on.

It’s a huge list and he speaks of them all frequently.

Each one represents a way that the constitutional basis for our government has been violated. A founding principle once compromised is simply broken and can be further ignored.

Congressman Paul wants to reverse this course by repairing the breaches inflicted over the last six or seven decades.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

The two sides of the abortion debate: one side sees murder, the other side sees it as a matter of access to a medical procedure. BOTH sides should be a state/local government policy matter.
======================

The only way this could ever be considered as any state policy, (federal or local) is if a state entity is paying for the procedure, or if the state plans to pay for the health and well being of the potential fetus, at least until the age of 18. At least that would be true for those who don’t see abortion as a choice, but rather as a murder.

Rape is never a choice either, and rarely is incest a choice. Yet, over and over again, women and girls become pregnant as a result. So, for those who would deny these women or girls the choice of terminating that pregancy, (because it’s murder) should be prepared to financially commit to the raising of that child. (via tax dollars?) But alas, Ron Paul doesn’t believe in that either.

And yes, it always amazes me that the body politic believes they should weigh in on this. It also never fails to amaze me how overwhelmingly protective they are of the “unborn”, but have zip concern for keeping them alive once they ARE born.

It’s an ideology that has no rationale.

Report this

By One Little Victory, August 13, 2007 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

#94651 by Ray Harmon on 8/13 at 3:23 pm
(3 comments total)

@One Little Victory:

You seem to forget that he is running for the Republican nomination and more specifically he was focused on Iowan voters when he made his speech in Ames.

Ron Paul is very much opposed to Abortion because he believes it isn’t about choice, it’s murder. BUT HE DOES NOT want the federal government forcing a YES or NO on the issue down the whole country’s throat. He doesn’t want this because it has absolutely no authority to do so.

The two sides of the abortion debate: one side sees murder, the other side sees it as a matter of access to a medical procedure. BOTH sides should be a state/local government policy matter.

No one has perfect knowledge, maximize freedom and allow people to govern themselves as much as possible on a local level.

****************************************************

Yes, continue talking about Constitutional matters of truly little political consequence when juxtaposed to an administration that has stripped the Bill of Rights of its intended meaning.

God forbid he be a real maverick and talk about something that has the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.

He’s not the only candidate avoiding the topic, to be certain. But it would seem a Constitutionalist would be more worried about the Constitution than about something that is supposedly outside the bounds of the document.

Report this

By lvogt, August 13, 2007 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The good news is that when anti-war Republicans realize what a fringe guy Paul really is the only place they will have to go is Democratic.

Report this

By Klaatu, August 13, 2007 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Good debate here:
http://volokh.com/posts/1176947872.shtml

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 13, 2007 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment

@One Little Victory:

You seem to forget that he is running for the Republican nomination and more specifically he was focused on Iowan voters when he made his speech in Ames.

Ron Paul is very much opposed to Abortion because he believes it isn’t about choice, it’s murder. BUT HE DOES NOT want the federal government forcing a YES or NO on the issue down the whole country’s throat. He doesn’t want this because it has absolutely no authority to do so.

The two sides of the abortion debate: one side sees murder, the other side sees it as a matter of access to a medical procedure. BOTH sides should be a state/local government policy matter.

No one has perfect knowledge, maximize freedom and allow people to govern themselves as much as possible on a local level.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

OK, now you’re kidding, right? Newt and Hillary both are pushing for a national healthcare database. Both parties voted for the Patriot Act. Both of those things negate any perceived right to privacy we had. RvW was decided before we all had to sign that little form at the Dr’s office which basically gives anybody with a badge the right to flip through our chart.
==============================

Nope, I’m still not kidding, but you’re not addressing what I was saying in respect to RvW and and the fact that “the right to abortion” cannot be amended into the Constitution and not be a “federal issue” which was the oxymoron part of your argument. The issue of abortion is not a legal or Constitutional question. Period.

And, anybody with a badge has always been able to look through your chart. The difference is that healthcare providers should not be required to provide the information to the feds. In my area, they won’t. But then, we’re extremely big on the privacy thing in my area.

So no, I wasn’t kidding this time either. I was simply addressing your point about amending the right to abortion into the constitution. I wasn’t talking about Hillary, or the Patriot Act, or any of the rest of that. Just R v W, which is now what…40 years old maybe? Doesn’t have anything to do with Hillary and the Patriot Act, or any of the other stuff that you’re prattling on about.

Still, Ron Paul didn’t help himself by calling it a “horrible thing” and that would give me pause to wonder if he really does have any respect for the rule of law, which is embodied in the Constitution.

Report this

By One Little Victory, August 13, 2007 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment

If he was THAT concerned with the Constitution of the United States, he would have avoided the topic of abortion and talked about restoring the liberties granted to us under that Constitution that have been stripped by our current morally-bankrupt administration. Restoring Habeus Corpus should be the first priority of any true libertarian. And THAT is what the Founders would be ashamed of.

He is right about Iraq. He is a crackpot about just about everything else.

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 13, 2007 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment

@Douglas Chalmers:
“Again, we are being led to believe that “guns on planes” is a genuine issue instead of a distraction to keep us from the real questions. How stupid to be thus fooled by RP.”

The 2nd Amendment is a big issue for about 64 million Americans, so I don’t agree with your statement.

You have to decide if you want the rule of law or the rule of men.

One has a method and process containing checks and balance, the other sways with the winds politics and can easily wreak havoc.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 4:07 pm Link to this comment

•  #94616 by banjoeyes1234

Simple question, who has more incentive to protect the lives of passengers and property of airlines, the airlines themselves that will lose money and perhaps go out of business if they fail or a federal
bureaucracy that mulcts more money from taxpayers if they fail?
Good question here,though it could possibly be a sort of “false choice” since the government is pretty much the same as the airlines. They are the Corporate Oligarchy, and the incentive is always the bottom line, and as cynical as it may seem, the corporations, (airlines) continually play the balance line between “appearing” to address security, and what it actually COSTS to provide such security.

For instance, if we are to believe the official story of 9-11, we have to ask how an alleged 19 highjackers were able to get through the airport security system and on to 4 separate aircraft, in 3 different cities, and 2 different airlines. That would suggest that the system that has been in place for years, had drastically failed. Part of the reason is that the actual security checking of passengers at all of these airports had been, (at the time of the alleged hijackings) was being carried out by subcontractors, rather than the airlines themselves, or even the local state law enforcement or port authority. So in effect, the employees manning those check points, and checking the luggage, and being on the lookout for anything strange or “off”, have been minimum or below minimum wage personnel, frequently not even US citizens, and prior to 9-11, the most cursory of background checks were performed on these individuals themselves.

So, this very important function has for years, been “contracted out” to these rapid turnover type “security services providers/contractors”, because it has meant enormous profits for the airlines, to avoid paying their own personnel what should be a decent wage for these positions, along with all of the other benefits. So for the airlines, the profit comes first, since better security can be provided by employees associated with the airline, (or the feds) because they’ve been trained more extensively in the entire operation. But, that drives up the cost of labor, and drives down the profits. Their own property (the airlines) is insured, so the financial risks are weighed from that view as well.


So the truth is that the new and improved security that has become the nightmare of air travel in the past 6 years, is no more or less effective at keeping passengers safe from would be terrorists, (suicide inclined or other) than it was before. It just has to be utilized. Obviously, in the case of 9-11, it was NOT utilized, or they would never have been allowed to board with such items. (if in fact that’s what happened).

There is DEFINITELY no incentive to the airlines to assist in the creation of the hysteria. As a matter of fact, all of these “security incidents” that have become so “routine” now, such as all of the diversions and emergency/unscheduled landings to check out possible “terrorists” in fact cost the airlines a lot at their bottom line. THAT, (more than the concern about being kept safe from highjackers) would be reason enough for the airlines to lose business. (the hassle factor) So, it has not worked out well for them, to have this collective hysteria from the traveling public. And yet, they have fed into it themselves.

But, it has been the theme of the “war on terror”, to keep all in fear and distracted by an enemy that appears to be very evasive.  So for the current government, it serves it’s purposes, and they don’t really care if the airlines go broke.

That’s not likely to happen though, just because the average frequent traveler, (which is where the larger profits come from) probably isn’t concerned about another terrorist threat like 9-11. It had never happened before 9-11, (suicide highjackers) and it hasn’t happened since. Nor have there been any bona fide “foiled” attempts.

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 4:05 pm Link to this comment

Again, we are being led to believe that “guns on planes” is a genuine issue instead of a distraction to keep us from the real questions. How stupid to be thus fooled by RP.
=======================================================

Actually, Dr Paul has only one issue. It’s the Constitution.  How stupid indeed.

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

If in fact there is indeed that “right” such as in doctor/patient confidentiality, or attorney/client privilage, then it follows that the question of abortion should not need any special legislation. It’s already covered.
=======================================================

OK, now you’re kidding, right? Newt and Hillary both are pushing for a national healthcare database. Both parties voted for the Patriot Act. Both of those things negate any perceived right to privacy we had. RvW was decided before we all had to sign that little form at the Dr’s office which basically gives anybody with a badge the right to flip through our chart.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court has upheld unconstitutional laws in the past, such as the DUI checkpoint law. Read the majority opinion - even though it’s a violation of our rights, they let it slide because lives might be saved. WTF? That’s not how its supposed to work, but it sure paves the way for mandatory Id cards and the future of biometric chip implants.

These are the very things that make Ron Paul the only candidate even worth thinking about. The rest of them are all cut from the same mold.

Report this

By Jeff, August 13, 2007 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think you’ve been watching too much “made for TV”.
——————————————————————————-

cyrena, I think you’re the one that has been watching too many movies.  A bullet hole will not de-pressurize a plane.  A plane is not airtight to begin with, there are valves that automatically control how much air flows in and out.  If there was a small hole made in the aircraft, the valves would adjust to it.  A Boeing 747 is designed so that it can lose 5 of it’s windows and not de-pressurize.  Even if there were some de-pressurization, the plane is not going to fall apart and people would not be sucked out of a few holes that are less than an inch around.  It’s pretty easy to do a little research before spouting nonsense in public. 

There are also several options in the choice of ammunition that would greatly reduce the chances of a round penetrating the aircraft.

Besides, allowing pilots to carry handguns isn’t about them having them so they can shoot someone, it’s about them having them so terrorists are deterred from attacking them in the first place.

Perhaps if the politicians changed our foreign policy and stopped trying to control everyone, we wouldn’t have to worry about terrorists attacking our planes.  They don’t hate us “for our freedom” (which we don’t have anymore anyway).  They hate us because we support Israel and generally act like the biggest bully in the schoolyard.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 13, 2007 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment

94629 by Ray Harmon on 8/13 at 2:33 pm: “...Concerning Abortion: Whether it is a medical procedure or murder, both issues need to be addressed by the states not the federal government….”

As I recall the last abortion debate here in April re the ban on partial-birth abortions, the “sanctity of unborn human life” and the medical needs of a woman as mother were clearly at odds. Perhaps we really need to restart that debate:-

Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: ‘’This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women’s health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them.’’

Again, we are being led to believe that “guns on planes” is a genuine issue instead of a distraction to keep us from the real questions. How stupid to be thus fooled by RP.

Top Court’s Choice Not Pro-Choice - http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/top_courts_choice_not_pro_choice/

Governing the Womb - http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/governing_the_womb/

Report this

By C. A. Dupin, August 13, 2007 at 3:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“the tainted foods and falling bridges and the like and hold tot this philosophy is probably well past saving.”

The tainted foods inspected by the FDA & Customs (government agencies)?  In both the spinach fiasco & the more recent Chinese imports problem, we’re talking about food that your government programs told everyone was safe. . . until a private enterprise (read any news article on the discovery of the bad products)stepped in & recalled them.

I can only assume you think that a private company controlled funding (and therefore, quality) of the bridge which collapsed.  A bridge built by & for (he who controls the purse, controls the quality) the state government.


As to destroying the planes with bullets.  First of all, I don’t see people shooting each other in the streets on a daily basis in an “OK Corral” manner.
Second, they’re called “glaser rounds”, google them.

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No, I wasn’t kidding. The airliners may indeed be able to “fly themselves”, (they can even land themselves in a pinch) but they’re likely to fall out of the sky with the help of “shoots fired in the cabin”. I mean really. Do you think a pressurized aircraft at 37,000 feet can really sustain a shoot-out in the fashion of the OK Corral?
=======================================================
Actually, you should probably read up on airplanes, because I do not think you could be any more wrong.  If you’re not into reading then checkout the TV show “Mythbusters.” They did an episode on it. If you are into reading, then Google is your friend.

And the the point still remains that the airlines, and not the government,  should have the right to decide how to defend their passengers and their planes. If the pilots had guns, 9/11 would not have happened. The pilots did not have guns because the government was sticking it’s nose in where it does not belong.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.