63 responses to “Ron Paul Explains Vote on “Crush Videos””

  1. Sunny

    I just voted for Ron Paul in the Florida Primary. But hearing about this is really upsetting. Freedom of Speech? Really? If Child Porn & Child abuse is illegal to watch (as it should be), then so should being able to buy a sickening video depicting the torture and killing of defenseless baby kittens, puppies, etc. This is a deal breaker for me. I can't believe Ron Paul voted yes for allowing sicko's to buy crush video's. I'm taking my Ron Paul bumper sticker off my car. I still like and respect Ron Paul but I can't in good conscience vote for him.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  2. Kristen C. Farron

    Does he then believe that the states should regulate child pornography too? Same premise... living beings abused for sexual gratification. He said it should be regulated on the state level, then says its a first amendment issue. PICK ONE!

    If a person records a crime, it's usually used as evidence to convict them of a crime, not protect them from being prosecuted.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  3. Tamz

    The fact he questions whether or not this will harm hunting videos, veterinary practices, meat processing actually PROVES he does not know what the hell he is talking about. Ron Paul did you even read the bill? Really? I did, word for word all versions and there is a written in exception to those types of videos, videos of hunting or food, for education, veterinary, or husbandry practices. As far as the state stuff goes, any time a crime crosses state lines it becomes a federal crime. You know this. So being it is the internet it can go across state lines making this a federal problem. The issue with individual states is every state has different laws pertaining to animal abuse. Some are harsher than others. Do you expect a person to be charged in every state the video was viewed or is it better to take ti federal and prosecute for ALL infractions, not just one per state. Do you understand double jeopardy laws? Probably not. Meaning he can not be tried for the same crime twice. Meaning he will run off scott free in whatever states did not prosecute first. With that said, if it is an international problem, the FBI and the like are networked with INTERPOL which is how they get those people in other countries and bring them to justice in every country they violated in. So yeah. Federal is the safest, and easiest way to get rid of these sick perverts. By the way how many of you have seen a crush video? You want to see one, I will send a link to an investigation of it so you can see the nastiness you are defending. So Ron Paul before you spew I suggest you get to know this countries laws and actually read the bills word for word. My views come from research and education on the topics. I would expect my government would not be dumber than me on these laws but obviously I am sorely mistaken. In fact hearing this makes me lose faith in the government. You did not read the bill or your comments would not be said. You are just feeling for excuses which make NO SENSE if you actually did your job and READ the bill. Thank god you aren't president. Jesus you refuse to read a bill, then question the bill and vote against it based on questions that are plainly addressed IN THE WRITING OF THE BILL? Good god. >.<
    By the way for you sickos who defend this: Watch this and see if you still think it is a good thing? WARNING DO NOT CLICK THESE IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN AROUND AS THESE ARE VERY DISTURBING PICTURES. THESE ARE WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING TO STOP. RON PAUL THIS IS WHAT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU VOTE AGAINST THIS STUFF. So be warned these are not pretty and are graphic.
    http://i45.tinypic.com/fp2yon.jpg
    http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:pgV6WGVeAee55M:http://graphics2.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/graphics/crush11.jpg&t=1
    http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRX5bbhhVUdEyjxwB-EBlJO5WEEfLipu7wZ-mI-6k0jaz3EkRI&t=1&usg=__CnFKSSzoWCTkoD7d1NIaXrOgI4Q=
    THESE are the things you are saying should not have a federal law. Would you say it if it was YOUR pet being victimized?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

    1. lharg1

      He's a really smart man, I guarantee he knows what he's talking about on this issue. And as cruel as these acts are (I would kill someone if my dog was harmed in that way), it's not a federal issue, nor should it be. True and permanent change to reverse these sick happenings are made on the micro-level, i.e. communities and states.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  4. WhyGovernment?

    Why bother with government intervention at all? If people have a problem with crush videos, as most of us do, they should donate funds to PETA or the ALF. These are the folks who are going to efficiently spend resources to find the sick f***s who make these videos and sabotage their operations. Federal or state bureaucracies are going to waste at least 95% of the funds allocated for these investigations. And as sick as these "crush" videos are, there is FAR more animal cruelty in the meat, fur, and dairy industries, though it lacks some of the shock value needed to mobilize voters and their representatives.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8

  5. Jules Manson

    Big Brother has allowed big business to hijack our democracy through campaign financing. Big brother has taxed and censored our television and cable, our print media, and you know it has an eye on our internet. Big brother is no kin. It cannot be trusted. Lets not sway even an inch when it comes to any form of censorship for once we have lost control of the internet we have truly lost all hope for taking back our due democracy.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12

    1. fred the protectionist

      Libertarians propagandize like Big Brother.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

  6. fred the protectionist

    Libertarians are too stupid to realize most people want censorship.

    I bought porn once, and was nauseated cause half of it was anal. Here I am trying to get off and I got vomit rising up my throat. I guess I wasn't a professional voyeur, or maybe it's cause even porn needs to be filtered and censored from the perversions and child rape.

    Has anyone seen the crap on TV these days? My favorite type of fiction is science-fiction, and now that's crap too. Science Fiction been taken over by stupid blood and guts shows like "Mansquito", or "Revenge of the Brain Eating Giant Rat II". Need censorship here too.

    Without censorship we have fallen down a slippery slope, and now our culture is degrading.

    Libertarians have joined forces with the lowest common denominator; Libertarians are the lowest common denominator.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14

  7. Forest

    "Under the Constitution, therefore, animal cruelty is a matter for state law."

    Well then, let us see how well our precious states are prepared to handle this emerging area. I mean, if 1000 people in each state see the same video on the internet of a woman crushing a baby animals skull with her booth heel, or a video of a baby girl being raped, you would like to have some sort of justice, right? That is 50,000 calls to the local police department - quite efficient.

    Well, that is assuming that our precious free market unicorn somehow has not managed to remove things of this nature (*gasp, what free markets and personal liberty don't take care of child porn?!?!?*). Now, lets not live in Ron Paul's utopia.

    Let us look at a survey of our 'incredibly capable' state attorneys relative to cybercrime and see what Ron Paul is preaching:

    First: 60% of district attorneys "do not currently have any personnel with specialized knowledge in this emerging area." (of cybercrime).

    Second: "The majority of the prosecutors reported that their offices’ lacked adequate computer equipment and were lagging in technological capabilities. The average equipment rating for those prosecutors’ offices that participated in the survey was 3.2 on a scale of 1 (totally unprepared) to 10 (completely prepared)."

    Third: "Seventy percent of the survey participants specifically stated that their offices would need significant computer and network upgrades in order to be in a better position to successfully manage and prosecute cyber crime cases."

    So, Ron Paul's non-solution is to not do anything about it, create more bureaucracy, and hand thousands of cases to already overworked state officials who are incompetant and incapable of investigating or prosecuting.

    Yeah, when Ron Paul's supporting the Lost Cause creates even more, inefficient government. What a clueless gnome.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9

  8. ProudTEX

    Why have federal law on top of state law which does the same thing?
    Forest - Are you trying to centralize this country. I like this country to remain as the United STATE of America and not like centralized name.

    Forget about Animal cruelty for a few second, how about human cruelty, torture and the trafficking that's been going on since god knows when but I vividly noticed since the 2001 in Abu Ghribe and Guantanamo bay, US military base in Capital of Afghanistan etc...

    Did Federal government handled any of the above right? If the Federal Gov. can't respect another human being with the accord with Human right law, International law and gods law, How can you even trust Federal Gov. on Animals?

    As far as the Human Trafficking, you should read about Israel whom your Federal government support so much that when Israel say jump, Obama and Bush says how high? Pretty sad.

    #######Israel is the Human Traffickers Haven.#############
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129157,00.html

    So, Ron Paul is right. There is no need for Federal Gov. to step in when we have state law that prevent the same type of crime.

    RON PAUL for 2012

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10

    1. Forest

      Riiiiight, so, ProudTEX, you are saying you are all for replicating bureaucracy?
      At what point does it become inefficient for EVERY STATE to replicate the same process of investigating, if not for even determining jurisdiction, for example?

      I know, you are right! Maybe America's Most Wanted would also be most effective if it were televised only in the state the crime occurred! Televising cross-country is COMPLETELY inefficient because everything is best handled in-state, makes complete sense, thanks ProudTEX!

      Wait, or are you saying that States are somehow completely immune to the 'virus of being a government bureaucracy' and are supremely equipped to handle investigation and prosecution of viral internet video, for example? How would you ever be able to prove jurisdiction? So, if I see a video on the internet, of something blatantly illegal (be it a crush/snuff/child sodomizing video) I can just call my local Police Department, report it, and they will take care of it? Really? Or, if I don't know what jurisdiction is, should I just be safe and call every police department to see whose jurisdiction it is? Hell, we should pass a state law saying 'there shall not be international spies in my state' - i bet that would work better than at the Federal level too! Genius!

      Well, I mean, first-hand didn't you see how well did those anti-fraud laws did in ferreting out the multitude of infractions that Enron committed right under Texas' nose? WAY TO GO STATES!

      Good thing whistleblowers can go out of state, otherwise I bet y'all would probably still be decrying Enron as 'FREE MARKETS BABY!' and hanging yourself with the Gadsen flag.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5

      1. ProudTEX

        “Riiiiight, so, ProudTEX, you are saying you are all for replicating bureaucracy?” My answer is NO.

        “At what point does it become inefficient for EVERY STATE to replicate the same process of investigating, if not for even determining jurisdiction, for example?”

        There is no problem with replicating the same process and enforcing the same type of law. If California for example comes with a new law that is beneficial to them and works fine for them, then Texas need to look into it too. Again replicating and enforcing the law is not the problem.
        So far we agree with each other..

        I like your example below because it tells me exactly where you coming from and where I stand.

        ““I know, you are right! Maybe America’s Most Wanted would also be most effective if it were televised only in the state the crime occurred! Televising cross-country is COMPLETELY inefficient because everything is best handled in-state, makes complete sense, thanks ProudTEX!””

        According to Wikipedia, “America's Most Wanted is an American TV show produced by 20th Century Fox's syndicated division, and is the longest-running program of any kind in the history of the Fox Television Network and also currently one of only three remaining first-run primetime programs airing on Saturday nights on the four major U.S. broadcast television networks”

        The question is do we really need to built a single network to air this show across all States at once? No and here is the reason why.
        We have multiple networks (just like states) already in place and they can copy to rebroadcast the show in the correct time zone . Could you imagine if this show was aired on from a single network (Just like federal) from Eastern time how many viewer would this show have in Pacific time? If this show was aired over and over for every state on a single network, people would get tired of this and won’t even bother watching it.
        I don’t know complete background of AMW show to which state (I mean state) did it started? And how did it spread across major network across the whole country? I am cretin that it didn't just started as it is running now. You are welcome Forest.

        Going back to Ron Paul statement “Under the Constitution, therefore, animal cruelty is a matter for state law. Individuals who participate in these sickening videos should be arrested and prosecuted by state or local police.”

        BTW Do you remember when Obama who got into the Gate and the Police issue? Did he solve the problem after all? I have to be honest and frank about it that he did solve the problem between the two.
        But do you really think Obama should get involved in this matter and solve it?

        This is the kind of solution we don’t need for our problem. We have laws, law enforcement, the Judges, the juries - a complete judicial system to take care of situation like this. Obama didn’t need to solve this issue because it undermined the system we have. It made him more of dictator type of president rather than a person with confidence in his country, in the system we the people have installed.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9

  9. Bottomline

    Any cruelty to animals is inhumane and immoral. However There are states that have laws banning unimaginable cruelty to animals! Ron Paul is right on the money.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13

    1. Forest

      And again, you are saying every state in the Union is equipped to investigate and determine jurisdiction on, a viral video someone saw on the internet?

      "Hello, 911 I just saw a snuff video on the internet, could you send a PO to my place? We need to investigate this right now!"

      Suuuuure, Ron Paul keeps supporting the extremism of the Lost Cause. Get over it.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5

  10. porchmike

    it seems that a lot of the commenters on this site are very anti- ron paul. why would you be commenting here then? my guess is someone or some organization is putting you up to it. if that's the case, do you really suppose that if you work for the elite, they'll let you into their club if and when they take all our freedom away? that you'll be sipping champagne with them in their estates as they ship most humans to work/death camps in order to get the population to an "acceptable" level? i wouldn't count on being accepted into that club unless you were born into it- they want you just as dead as the rest of us, and will be more than happy to use your services and pay you in their worthless paper money before they throw you in the oven with the rest of us.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13

    1. fred the protectionist

      Yeah it must be a big conspiracy, and man faked landing on the moon too.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

    2. Forest

      Porchmike naively says: "it seems that a lot of the commenters on this site are very anti- ron paul. why would you be commenting here then? my guess is someone or some organization is putting you up to it"

      My take: Seems like a lot of authors on this blog are very pro-Ron Paul - my guess is they are paid by companies just ITCHING to get government out of the way so they can go back to abusing workers for profit. Triangle Shirtwaist anyone? Harlan County, Rand Paul?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6

  11. porchmike

    this bill was designed to enable more censorship. i haven't read it, but i'd be very surprised if there isn't some very scary language buried in the bill which would limit posting of views/ideas much less brash than animal torture. besides, animal cruelty already IS illegal, and law enforcement can prosecute these people anyway without this bill. let them put up a video- that makes it easier to catch them! those who are bashing r. paul for voting against it and calling him "mean, soulless", etc. to appeal to people's emotions are probably paid to do so by people who work for the rich elite, people who are scared of this man and what he stands for, because they realize that without slaves to do their dirty work(military, politicians, media, etc.) they have no power!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10

    1. ProudTEX

      "this bill was designed to enable more censorship" ---or possibly get more money from you in taxes, license etc...

      RON PAUL 2012

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11

    2. fred the protectionist

      Good, we need more censorship, especially in the entertainment industry.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

    3. Forest

      Porchmike says: "this bill was designed to enable more censorship. i haven’t read it,"

      YES! That is the kind of logic we have come to expect from a Paulian! Complete and utter acceptance of blatant self-professed hypocrisy! "well, i haven't read it or studied it, but I know it to be true that..."

      Well done!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  12. Judith

    Mr. Paul, you are a soulless monster that sold your soul many years ago. No heart, no soul., how horribly sad! Now I understand why your son is the way he is... I thank the heavens that you're not my father.
    To many, you are very simply filth!
    Judith

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 17

    1. Forest

      No no no, you are misinterpreting Ron Paul, he (and his army of Paulians) are simply saying that your state and local governments are eminently capable of handling the investigation and prosecution of videos of this type on the internet!

      After all, there are animal cruelty laws, which your local and state governments can easily enforce - because state and local governments are EXCELLENT at sourcing a mass-produced video without knowing who or where the video/reseller is located.

      In summation, Ron Paul is urging you to give your local police department a call, they will ABSOLUTELY be able to assist you in investigating, and prosecuting, a malicious video you see on the internet.

      Right Paulians?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 10

      1. Forest

        In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if your local Sheriff hasn't already proactively searched out Crush videos on the internet and begun reverse-engineering IP addresses already just to see if the creation or reselling possibly falls within their jurisdiction!

        Or maybe the state highway patrol?

        Or maybe the local police department?

        I doubt Ron Paul even knows what an IP address is, and as such he is an EXPERT on determining whether state and local departments can handle these types of violations?

        hogwash

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 11

        1. fred the protectionist

          Neo-Feudalists want to return to the good old days where a murderers, thieves or rapists cross state lines to get away with crime.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5

    2. AaronDanMcCaslin

      wow, what a cunt

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  13. Cindi

    Re. Kevin W.-
    This bill was written to specifically prohibit anyone from "knowlingly and for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain" selling, offering to sell, or distributing an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce.

    And I will quote Congressman Gallegly when he responded to this being a violation of the First Amendment: "Violence is not a First Amendment issue; it is a law enforcement issue," he said. "Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski tortured or killed animals before killing people. The FBI, U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice consider animal cruelty to be one of the early warning signs of potential violence by youths. This bill is one step toward ending this cycle of violence."

    Now who's the idiot.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7

    1. jim

      Why do you prefer the federal goverment to prosecute instead of the state?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11

      1. Forest

        Jim, are you saying states and counties have the resources, expertise, and bandwith to investigate every crush video reported, first, to determine jurisdiction, and then to attempt prosecution?

        Wait, shouldn't free markets simply be taking care of this? Or is this kinda like how free markets and local governance took care of... rac ism? (which is, to say, didn't do a damn thing)

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

        1. jim

          Forest, I truly don't know why you come to site where 95% of the people disagree with you. Are you so bored with you life that you just need to insult people for attention? Or do you honestly think you are doing good on this site, insults or not? (It wasn't me today, just looking at some of the above comments). I will try to give a civil answer.

          I'm not saying you didn't make some valid points. But are you saying that the state is completely ineffectual and shouldn't even try? I think the states could do this more effectively then you would be willing to give them credit for. Are you assuming if there is no federal staute that crossing a state border means necessarily that a person gets away scot free. Could not states voluntarily work together. Yes, I see an inherent problem with this. If not required, then the possibility a state may not voluntarily help another state. I personally feel you give people too little credit. I would think most times there would be co-operation.

          Are you assuming that if the federal goverment takes over it will do an inherently better job because it has more resources? Why is it the FBI had reports of people learning how to fly planes but not land them and yet airplanes hit the world trade center? I personally believe that the federal goverment has so much raw data that it cannot begin to categorize it and therefore interpret correctly. Why did FEMA have so many resources that never got delivered into the hands of the people who so desperately needed it. I would hazard to guess partially the same reason with a little greed sprinkled in.

          We have both (at least I feel) presented adequate concerns for both state and federal solutions. What does this tell you? That we are living on the planet earth and not the garden of eden. That neither way is perfect. Then you are left with what to do. You have 2 choices. You either come up with a perfect plan or you accept in your heart there is no perfect plan. I have accepted the latter.

          As a libertarian I don't believe in free health care. And trust me, there is no such thing. In Canada they pay 38% income tax. That's not free no matter how you want to cut it. Also their infrastructure is terrible just like the US now. Potholes and run down bridges. I happen to be living in South Korea at the moment teaching english. They have a 10% income tax and pay as you go healthcare. My korean co-teachers mother was in the hospital for a month. She paid $1000 total. Also know the infrastructure here is great. It's what North America use to look like in the early 80's. What system would you prefer? And don't forget that Korea is one of the few countries doing great right now. Low unemployment, big companies making useful products for the world (hyundai,kia,daewoo-cars, samsung computers/cellphones), low inflation and so a comfortable standard of living and a thriving middle class. Pleae don't go into a rant about North Korea or the Chinese. You don't live here and you get your information from the mainstream. South Korean people laugh at the idea of going to war with North Korea. And don't say it's because of America defending it. You have 30,000 troops here. The south koreans have the 2nd largest standing army in the world next to.. that's right you got it.. to North Korea. (I just feel you are going go on tirade that is not about the subject at hand and you are not properly informed on anyway).

          All I meant by that example I prefer Korea's way of doing it. Could people fall through the cracks with that healthcare system? Yes.., I just think alot more slip through the cracks back in North America. But as previously said we don't live in the garden of eden. You seem to be more of a federalist. You must see inherent benefits to that system or why would you support it. I simply disagree with.

          Thomas Jefferson summed it aptly about not living in a perfect world and just doing the best you can. (I know quoting Jefferson will also put a bee in your bonnet but I believe this quote... you I'm taking not so much.) " I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

          I have tried to show both sides of this as civilly as I could and just show why I come down on a state side solution. I do have that libertarian FEAR you worry we all have. I fear goverments 99.99% of the time throughout history have horaded power to benefit itself, believe it's in it's very nature to do so and believe we would be better off with as little as possible. I'm just being honest Mr. Fred.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10

        2. F

          Jim asks: "But are you saying that the state is completely ineffectual"

          Yes, actually. I am.

          Let us look at a survey of our ‘incredibly capable’ state attorneys relative to cybercrime and see what Ron Paul, and you, are preaching:

          First: 60% of district attorneys “do not currently have any personnel with specialized knowledge in this emerging area.” (of cybercrime).

          Second: “The majority of the prosecutors reported that their offices’ lacked adequate computer equipment and were lagging in technological capabilities. The average equipment rating for those prosecutors’ offices that participated in the survey was 3.2 on a scale of 1 (totally unprepared) to 10 (completely prepared).”

          Third: “Seventy percent of the survey participants specifically stated that their offices would need significant computer and network upgrades in order to be in a better position to successfully manage and prosecute cyber crime cases.”

          So, this is who you want investigating and prosecuting child rape videos on the internet?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

        3. jim

          "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". A famous quote on statistics. I don't know how valid your statistics are??? Maybe there great. But if I wanted stats to bolster my side of the argument they wouldn't be hard to find. I'd like to know who issued you're stats, very important. The wording of the survey. The control groups, were they using mean,median or mode (or selected one beneficial to their argument) blah, blah, blah. I truly believe a person must be completely informed about all aspects of a survey before they are taken seriously.

          And where are your pro-federalists stats? And then I would still have the same questions.

          Of course I believe stats are an essential tool for objective scientists. Surveys that support political views just hold absolutely no weight with me. Even if they prove my side of an argument unless I know alot more about how the stats were gathererd, who was doing it, and for what purpose. Stats are too often used to obscure a debate rather than enlighten. And yes, I would question stats just as strongly from someone I respected like Dr. Paul. They are too eay to twist.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

        4. jim

          I would actually like to look up your stats if you would source them.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

        5. Forest

          http://www.ncgccd.org/PDFs/Pubs/NCCJAC/cybercrime.pdf

          And for some federal cases, this was interesting... Again, if you think states have the resources to be able to identify and prosecute things on an international scale, if say a Crush video originated in an Eastern European country, the state will again, have jurisdiction/resources to investigate and prosecute?

          http://www.witsa.org/papers/McConnell-cybercrime.pdf

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    2. jim

      Do you believe inane statements from politicians like, "This bill is one step toward ending this cycle of violence." ? Do you not believe this "cycle" of violence primarily occurs because of bad parenting and that morality truly starts at home.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8

      1. fred the protectionist

        Libertarians are anarchists and against morality.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

        1. jim

          PROTECTIONISM IS PERFECTION!!!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

        2. fred the protectionist

          Protectionists have no illusion of Utopia or "perfection", but Libertarians do.

          Utopianists are dangerous.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

        3. jim

          Hilarious you should write that about me. I've got a comment being moderated. Read what I wrote before you even replied.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

        4. jim

          Sorry, I was trying to talk in protectionistese. I'll try again.

          "FREE TRADE IS SLAVERY!!!'

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        5. fred the protectionist

          Free Trade and Slavery go hand in hand, one cannot exist without another.

          A slave is too poor to purchase what they manufacture so the manufacturer has to export to foreign markets.

          The rich look for luxury goods which slaves cannot produce, so they look to foreign markets to import.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      2. Forest

        Do you believe free markets are going resolve these atrocities?

        State and county bureaucrats?

        Yeeeahhhhhhh right. 'Federal bureaucrats are WORTHLESS! AND my local bureaucrats are AMAZING!'

        Whatever.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

        1. fred the protectionist

          Yes, another Libertarian hypocracy. They preach state rights, but then don't want any government whatsoever, even for states.

          And how in the hell do you spell hypocracy, i'm going to die before getting it right.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

    3. Citizen

      Cindi,
      Unfortunately the "cycle of violence" won't be curtailed one iota with Federal Legislation. These idiots who perpetrate these violent images are breaking laws already on the books....

      These crimes are a serious lack of moral restraints and they are nihilists typically devoid of moral character and only seeking emotional outrage, as you and I are clearly move.

      If they are serial violators of the existing laws than they will be aprehended and fined and/or jailed.

      But MORE LAWS are not the answer to moral debauchery, Libertarians believe personal moral conduct and responsibility are essential elements to the personal Liberty.

      Dr Paul is not insensitive to this outrages behavior, rather he (and I) hold that individuals MUST restrain themselves and more government is not the answer.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8

    4. Libertarian777

      and, as the hand-gun ban in Washington DC pre-Heller showed... criminals obey laws. So having this new federal law, animal cruelty will stop immediately, because Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski would NEVER have tortured those animals had this law been in force at the time.

      If they had a federal statute against rape, robbery, fraud, theft and murder, crime would stop instantly. Since we all know criminals will obey federal laws.

      Gun crime statistics have shot up dramatically post-Heller. DC had the lowest gun crime rate pre-Heller. Lower than Alaska (where no permits are required to own/carry a gun). And Texas!

      If you believe anything I just said above, please do some research.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

      1. fred the protectionist

        Oh so according to your Libertarian logic, we should have no laws, ok anarchist.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3

      2. Forest

        I call 'Naive Libertarian'!

        "IF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD DISAPPEAR, EVERYONE WOULD ACT SENSIBLY AND WE'D ALL BE ABLE TO GET ALONG'

        http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  14. fred the protectionist

    Ron Paul must have microwaved kittens when he was a kid.

    Oh wait I take that back, microwave ovens weren't invented when he was a kid. Maybe he just smashed puppies heads in with a hammer.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 22

    1. Citizen

      Fred,
      Step away from the microwave, your egg is already well done dude!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8

  15. S Hahn

    Mr. Paul is not saying that there is no difference between a video of game hunting and one showing a kitten being crushed; he is saying that legislation enacted to prohibit the latter could be used against the former. He is not saying that no legislation should be enacted to deal with this problem; he is saying that legislation to deal with this problem, and enforcement of these laws, should be handled at the state and local levels. We should be angry that these heinous acts are being committed, but let's direct our anger and our energies in the proper direction -- through state and local measures to stop these acts and punish those who commit them.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8

    1. fred the protectionist

      Yes it is a slippery slope. Once you let kids torture animals as a kid, they can become murderers of humans as adults.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10

    2. Forest

      OK, so y'all say "and enforcement of these laws, should be handled at the state and local levels."

      Please, provide any examples of how state and local levels are capable of determining whether or not a crime that occurred on an internet video even resides in their state? I had NO IDEA! States and counties are SO well equipped to handle something such as a viral video of, say, someone being murdered - I mean the laws are already there!

      Cindi, it sounds like when you see an infraction of this sort, call your local police station and have them investigate. They will be able to address and resolve, if they can't, just say 'But Ron Paul told me you could!'

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  16. Cindi Mayville

    I am ASHAMED to live in the District which Ron Paul represents. How can one person not see that there is a significant difference betwen watching a video of game hunting and another video of a kitten getting crushed by the point of a stilleto heel? I am not a hunting advocate by any means and I raise my children to respect all animals...but I do also understand the need for population control in some instances (not all, but some instances). There is no slippery slope in my opinion, change has to begin somewhere and by voting against this bill just hinders any type of change that may ever happen when it comes to stopping this cruel act. If you would like to visit and change the animal cruelty laws in your area Ron- so that they make animal cruelty a felony vs. a misdemeanor (slap on the wrist or a fine), then you may have some justification on voting against this bill. As for now......my vote and all of those who know me and reside in Galveston County, will be for your opposition.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 15

    1. Kevin W

      Cindi... you are an idiot. Have you ever heard of the Constitution? We have processes in this country, and the Constitution is what Dr. Paul is bound by and what he proudly upholds.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10

    2. Patrian

      Did you know there is no FEDERAL LAW against murder? Murder prosecutions take place under STATE LAW.

      Animal cruelty can be a FELONY within STATE LAW... there is NO NEED for the Federal Government to get involved when the States can enact the proper punishment.

      Wow... it's no amazement people in this country have NO CLUE how our government was intended to work.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8

      1. fred the protectionist

        Yes it's amazing how Libertarians have no clue as to how Government is suppose to work.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

    3. Citizen

      Cindi

      EMOTING in not THINKING
      Law is built on lengthy deliberation and serious thought, not emotion.

      Our nations laws are not based on emotional responses to vile acts as you may have witnessed by these videos that are obviously repulsive and they are probably only 1% of the real crimes not witnessed.

      We can not Legislate World or even National Morality.
      Keep in mind that our nation's forebears knew this and put "In God We Trust" on our currency for a very good reason. We can't count on laws to make our citizens moral.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

      1. fred the protectionist

        "We can not ....Morality."

        Yes 'we' can, and 'we' should.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

        1. Libertarian777

          like Iran?

          we should legislate immoral behaviour?
          http://gulfnews.com/news/region/iran/now-iran-bans-western-hair-cuts-1.112163

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

        2. Forest

          Are you saying then that we shouldn't even attempt to impose morality?

          I call CREEPY LIBERTARIAN!

          "Why should I have to go all the way to Thailand to have sex with a child prostitute?"

          http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

        3. fred the protectionist

          Iran is not an American state/colony/territory. Yes I know, you globalist Libertarians have no concepts like statehood and sovereignty.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    4. Libertarian777

      it 'seems' simple now Cindy, but what happens when there are gray issues?
      Since you've already allowed the federal government to dictate all laws, whatever they feel is the black/white answer becomes law?

      What about the Sherrod case? that clearly shows that no, you won't be able to tell exactly what the situation is. What for example would you say if you saw a 'crush' video of a kitten being crushed by a car tire? you'd say it's illegal! ban it!
      what if you zoom out and realise that that kitten escaped from a vet and ran into the middle of the highway, and the video is showing the responsibility required by vetranarians?? now what? you've already prosecuted jailed and destroyed the life of the person who captured it on film?

      Do you really think they'll be able to write the law specifically to exclude 'hunting' videos? so what if someone says "i hunt mice with forks?" what if he actually eats the mice? is that a crush video or not? What about inuit who hunt wales traditionally with handheld harpoons, or who club seals to kill them, for food. Is that a crush video? in Alaska no, in California yes? but the federal government will say we should arrest all inuit?

      This is exactly what's happened with the 2nd amendment. It's already against the law to threaten someone with a weapon, or to kill or injure someone, but unreasonable restrictions on firearms posession exist just beacuse you 'might' kill/injure someone. What if you words are injurious? or 'might' be injurious to someone?do we ban free speech then?

      And your mere statement Cindi that you 'raise your children to respect animals' is EXACTLY what Ron Paul stands for. PERSONAL choice, PERSONAL responbility. YOU (not the government) determines how you live your life, provided it does not infringe on someone else's private property rights. What if the feds mandated a law that said 'meat is murder'? taught in all schools? what if they taught the opposite? either way you would have no choice in whether you get to teach your children to be vegetarians or carnivores.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8

    5. Chris

      These crush videos feature acts that are ILLEGAL!!!! He even admits that they are then has the nerve to compare it to a hunting, factory farm or fur videos. While those are HORRIFIC to me, they are LEGAL. There is a difference between legal and illegal last time I checked.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply