Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>Safety and violence trump all for me. I wish that I could vote based on economic policy alone because that is my second biggest concern - but I can't. </p>

<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20071030/ca_pr_on_en/manhunt2_violence_5">http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20071030/ca_pr_on_en/manhunt2_violence_5</a> </p>

<p>A video game where people 'pretend' to do horrifying things to people - unacceptable.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
<a href="http://cagle.com/caglecards/main.asp?image=/news/HousingMarket07/images/deering.gif"><img height="404" width="600" align="bottom" border="0" naturalsizeflag="3" alt="" src="http://cagle.com/news/HousingMarket07/images/deering.gif" /></a>
 
@ movingaround: Doesn't violent crime drop significantly during economic prosperity? Obviously gun control isn't perfect in your eyes, but at least there are some controls in place because we aren't all running around like we're Mad Max.



No matter what my top issue was, I think I would be more likely to vote for a candidate who could put the wheels in motion to resolve more items on my list rather than a candidate who could only move a few including my top concern.
 
<p>hmmm - Adam - I do agree with you - logically it is best to pick the candidate that can set the wheels in motion to resolve the bulk of items one cares about. However, when I watched that video I really enjoyed it - liked what Ron Paul said - thought this made sense. And then the statement gets thrown in at the end that he has never voted for gun control (exact wording may be off) and that just gets me in the gut and makes me not want to vote for him.</p>

<p>So, maybe it is an emotional response as opposed to a calculated reasoning. Sort of like buying a house right! ha ha!</p>
 
Ron Paul on Jay Leno.


<object width="425" height="366">

<param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B0KwY9Uzqtk&rel=1&border=0" name="movie" />

<param value="transparent" name="wmode" /><embed width="425" height="366" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B0KwY9Uzqtk&rel=1&border=0"></embed></object>
 
<p>jwbrown77 </p>

<p>a lot of it - yes. Our society has crossed a line - people are becoming desensitized to terrible things - the things that are done to other human beings on tv are horrific and they are not presented that way. I can't even allow my children to watch non-violent tv shows because the images portrayed on the commercials advertising other tv shows are disgusting. </p>

<p>We are supposed to be a society in which people have a right to live free - well, I don't feel free at all when I have to be afraid for myself and my kids whenever I step out my door because there are sickos out there learning how to torture people and enjoying it through watching tv and playing 'games'. </p>

<p>Torture, killing, murder, kidnapping - all those things are not entertainment and they should not be presented as such.</p>

<p> </p>
 
I sign out of my hotmail account and I see in the news section "<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21516892/">Paul's dreams becoming real</a>". I curiously thought could the MSM actually be doing a story on Ron Paul or will this link me to a story on Rupaul? You would think with all the money he has raised, the crowds that follow him and how he does well in the debate polls that the MSM would be all over it. They tend to be slow to report on reality.
 
<p>Movingaround, I understand where you are coming from but I beg to disagree.</p>

<p>Torture, kidnapping, murder have existed since the beginning of time. The Spanish Inquistion, the Salem Witch Trials, the Holocaust, etc. . . people have been perfect capable of hurting others without the help of tv shows and video games. I grew up in the era of "violent games and shows" and I have not killed anyone (yet ) </p>

<p>It is normal for you to have fears about the safety of your children and yourself but the odds that you will be killed by violent crime is extremely low. You are much more likely to get hit by a car. You are certainly not more at risk because of video games or tv shows. </p>

<p> </p>
 
I played GTA San Andreas and enjoyed it immensely. It's pure fiction, and one of the most important things a parent can teach their child is the border between fantasy and reality.





I've never had any desire to harm a police officer and my record is clean. I've never been drunk, smoked a cigarette, and I wouldn't touch drugs with a hundred foot pole.





Fantasy and reality are two different things.
 
<p>There is research showing that with the introduction of tv to a community there are increased agression levels - etc. Wish I had a link to point you to....</p>

<p>Your point is well taken though - violence has existed forever and it is part of being human. However, doesn't that also prove that we will need to work even harder to maintain a civil society in which these things are considered absolutely and unequivocally (sp?) unacceptable? In my mind the fact that these things are so common and so much part of humanity means that we will need to be ever diligent in our attention to them as a society.</p>

<p>Glad to hear you haven't killed anyone yet! :)</p>

<p>I watched the video from the daily show on Ron Paul - he wants to get rid of medicare too - at least he said there would have to be a transition time - wonder how long he thinks is a transition time? Unless he thinks all of us middle agers can afford to support all the health care needs of our aging parents that transition time is going to be quite long. Even if I didn't have to pay any taxes I couldn't afford it. Seriously, how does he think that can that work????? Anyone know what he says about it???</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
In my experience, it's been the kids that have been sheltered from everything possible that wind up having problems adjusting when they're thrust into the real world. I knew a girl whose parents wouldn't let her even watch The Simpsons. She entered college as a freshman in the dorms and was an unabated alcoholic within 3 months.





To each their own, but I think a solid education on what's real and what's not is absolutely crucial to the mental health of any individual.
 
<p>Movingaround,</p>

<p>I am aware of the studies that you talk about but, like most psychological issues, there are opposing studies that say the opposite. I am not naive enough to think that violent content has no influence on individuals, especially young children and teenagers (I mean, 10 year old girls are a prime target for advertising and products. . .see Hannah Montana). After all, desensitization is an element of brainwashing. </p>

<p>However, being a former scientist. I know that people can skew studies to the results rather than the other way around. While I do not question the validity of the studies, I believe the problem with many studies is that they try to isolate/find one element or factor that caused a certain behavior when in reality many factors can lead to the problems. I believe that violent video games/tv shows tend to disproportionately attract individuals who have violent tendencies, just like casinos disproportionally attract gambling addicts and bars attract alcoholics. Most people can go to Vegas and walk away but some cannot. Likewise, most people who play video games can differentiate between reality and fantasy but some cannot. I believe that those who cannot differentiate have other social factors that cause them to want to leash out at society and use the games as an outlet or as a "gateway" to more violence. It is simply too complicated to try and narrow it down to one thing.</p>

<p>The other part of it is that many parents are allowing video games and televisions to raise their kids. Without a healthy alternative or viewpoint to base reality upon, children can become more violent as a result of video games. However, that is an issue with the parents, not the video games.</p>

<p> </p>
 
@ movingaround: To answer your question from what I've read and heard the past 18 hours is the idea to give everybody the ability to opt out of social security and medicare plans (which is most beneficial for the youth by putting tax dollars back into their pocket) and with the money that is saved by bringing all our troops home from all over the world, fund these entitlement programs until they are eventually phased out. Nobody will be thrown out on the streets.



I'm starting to like this idea the more I think about it. :-)
 
<p>valid point jw - I know a kindergarten teacher who says that it can be hard for kids who have not watched any tv at all because they can't participate in some of the conversations and pretend play of the other kids. </p>

<p>All those horrible things on tv and video games are real as irvinecommuter pointed out - yet they aren't presented as real - and the heartbreaking consequences for the families and loved ones are rarely shown. If the extent of emotional pain that many of these behaviors cause was shown on tv it wouldn't be very entertaining at all.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>irvinecommuter - aagh - you know how to shoot my arguments down using my own field (psychology and research) against me - I love this blog! </p>

<p>Thanks Adam - have to think about that idea - interesting! Even if I don't agree with all his underlying beliefs I must say that Ron Paul appears to be extremely intelligent.</p>
 
<p>Regarding Paul, I think Jon Stewart made a good point in his now famous tongue lashing of Tucker Carlson of Crossfire. Stewart commented that he thought Al Sharpton was the most compelling candidate in the Democratic Primaries during the 2004 election. His view was that the canddates with little or no chance of winning often have the best ideas because they do not have to be "politically correct". I think Paul is the same way. I do not necessary agree with everything he proposes but he certainly give me things to think about. </p>

<p>Also, idealism is often shot down when one gets into the Oval office. Remember Clinton in 1992? He had all these ideas that he wanted to implement but no dice. Instead, he became a centralist and populist. I am not sure JFK's message would have worked now. Everyone is so cynical and all the "political" shows would probably rip him for his statements.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top