Ron Paul: The GOP Candidate to Beat?

[240 is Back]

Ron was only arguing that there was a BETTER (more principled) way to do it than through extra-judicial killing and by violating Pakistani sovereignty.

What if the roles had been reversed? What if a fugitive wanted by Pakistan had holed himself up inside the US, with the help of some local sympathizers. If Pakistani commandos had been airdropped into our backyard in the middle of the night without warning, and shot the guy dead along with a few others, including several who were unarmed, while being fully prepared to kill any of our cops who might have responded to the commotion and rushed to the scene to intercept the armed intruders. What would our reactions have been? Would the fact that the fugitive was found hiding amongst us automatically mean that we were guilty of harboring him as a nation, and hence forfeiting our sovereignty? That the burden of proof is on our government - to show that it did not know he was here?

Great point by Ron paul here.

[Benny B]

OK, just so I've got this straight, you're crying in the other thread (the one stickied) about how the government is a bunch of lying douchebags.

And in this thread, you're claiming that you support lying and think that's what they should be doing.

That's "24.0 Is My IQ," ladies and gentlemen! 

[Fury]

This is why Ron Paul is going to have a difficult time getting elected:

Ron Paul Says He Would Have Opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act Ending Segregation

(Briefing Room) — Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) suggested Friday that he wouldn’t have voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he were a member of Congress at the time.

Paul, the libertarian Texas Republican who formally announced Friday that he would seek the presidency for a third time, said he thought Jim Crow laws were illegal, and warned against turning strict libertarians into demagogues.

MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the ’64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.

“Yeah, but I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws,” Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act “because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws.”

Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), faced criticism during his campaign for Senate last fall because of similar remarks he made, also during an appearance on MSNBC. Rand Paul had advanced a similar argument about property rights, and, under political pressure, issued a follow-up statement in which he voiced support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and would not support any efforts to repeal it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161217-paul-says-he-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act


Can't get out of his own way. He needs to stick to hammering the economic points and shut up about pretty much everything else.

[Bindare_Dundat]

He's explained this issue a million times amd iit makes sense to everyone but the Racheal Maddows and Chris Mathews of the world, but they can piss off anyway.

[Benny B]

He's explained this issue a million times amd iit makes sense to everyone but the Racheal Maddows and Chris Mathews of the world, but they can piss off anyway.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Great retort.  Maybe moving pictures will help you understand his position, its not promoting racism, its promoting freedom and responsibility. I know you need someone to think for you and tell you how to live every moment of your life, you might actually love it.

[Benny B]

Great retort.  Maybe moving pictures will help you understand his position, its not promoting racism, its promoting freedomand responsibility. I know you need someone to think for you and tell you how to live every moment of your life, you might actually love it.

That wasn't a "retort" simpleton, just an acknowledgment of of how woefully ignorant you are.

I actually watched that interview LIVE, dipshit. Thanks for nothing. If you think Maddow and Matthews are the only people who think Paul Ron's view on the Civil Rights Act is asinine, you need your head examined.

[Bindare_Dundat]

That wasn't a "retort" simpleton, just an acknowledgment of of how woefully ignorant you are.

I actually watched that interview LIVE, dipshit. Thanks for nothing. If you think Maddow and Matthews are the only people who think Paul Ron's view on the Civil Rights Act is asinine, you need your head examined.

You couldnt even comprehend the sarcasm of a two word sentance and Im the simpleton? 

[Benny B]

You couldnt even comprehend the sarcasm of a two word sentance and Im the simpleton? 

Yes. 
In addition, your spelling has been atrocious in your last two posts.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Yes. 
In addition, your spelling has been atrocious in your last two posts.

My fingers are too fat for the touch so sue me.

[Skip8282]

He's explained this issue a million times amd iit makes sense to everyone but the Racheal Maddows and Chris Mathews of the world, but they can piss off anyway.

It doesn't make sense at all.

Suggesting that he would vote against the civil rights act, and all the good it did, just because of the property rights issue is a childish oversimplification of the real world.  You can't get everything you want, whenever you want it.  Sometimes congresspeople have to look at the overall good a law does and accept some of the shit they just don't like.  And it's a common theme with RP, his votes and, IMO, his overall ineffectiveness.  Hell, how much of his shit even makes it through sub committee?

Also, the fundamental premise of assuming a market correction is just nonsense - especially in that day and age when there were even fewer minorities.

[Fury]

Ron Paul Doubles Down: We Should Have Let The Pakistanis Arrest Bin Laden

(Politico) — Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) refused on Sunday to back down from comments last week that the United States should have informed the Pakistani government that American officials knew where Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was hiding.

“Why are we having trouble with the [Pakistani] government, why are we stirring up a civil war in Pakistan? It’s because we’ve been bombing it,” Paul said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The libertarian Paul, who’s running again for the Republican presidential nomination, said his opposition to the U.S. mission to kill bin Laden demonstrates the principles of his non-interventionist foreign policy.

The Obama administration should have relied on the Pakistani government to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to U.S. authorities, Paul said.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0511/Ron_Paul_Mission_against_bin_Laden_should_have_been_done_differently.html



Why does he have so much faith in the Islamist-infested Pakistani security forces?

[Soul Crusher]

This is where RP needs to get with the program if he wants to win.   

WTF? 


RP simply says:   "we had credible intel on the pofs who killed 3,000 of our citizens, case closed"


This is where RP pisses me off.  Its like Dude " STFU!!!!  "   We can win this if you shut your mouth on this. 

[Dos Equis]

It doesn't make sense at all.

Suggesting that he would vote against the civil rights act, and all the good it did, just because of the property rights issue is a childish oversimplification of the real world.  You can't get everything you want, whenever you want it.  Sometimes congresspeople have to look at the overall good a law does and accept some of the shit they just don't like.  And it's a common theme with RP, his votes and, IMO, his overall ineffectiveness.  Hell, how much of his shit even makes it through sub committee?

Also, the fundamental premise of assuming a market correction is just nonsense - especially in that day and age when there were even fewer minorities.

Agree. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

Movements to end discrimination of many sorts don't usually start at the top and work their way down. The the types of movements that end discrimination start at a grassroots cultural level and work their way up. You guys always reference racism as if only blacks would experience it in Ron world, that is not the case. In a free society blacks could also refuse services to whites for example. As repugnant as racism or discrimination is, the underlying message her is still freedom to choose and the right to protect ones own property from government. People change through their own hands on experiences with eachother and I happen to believe that it's natural human evolution that will get rid of discrimination and not a bunch of guys in Washington who are usually last to feel the pulse of the nation. If citizens are free to refuse others the rest of society can refuse to use the services offered by the person(s) they find being offensive. That's the whole thing about freedom, it isn't always perfectly packaged, it's controversial and messy.

Are you guys suggesting that the only thing that stops American citizens frpm being discriminatory towards others because of a passed Act? I have a feeling the majority of citizens are naturally tolerant and understanding and through this we experince lasting change. Sorry I don't share the overwhelming cynism some of you hold towards everyday people.

[Dos Equis]

Movements to end discrimination of many sorts don't usually start at the top and work their way down. The the types of movements that end discrimination start at a grassroots cultural level and work their way up. You guys always reference racism as if only blacks would experience it in Ron world, that is not the case. In a free society blacks could also refuse services to whites for example. As repugnant as racism or discrimination is, the underlying message her is still freedom to choose and the right to protect ones own property from government. People change through their own hands on experiences with eachother and I happen to believe that it's natural human evolution that will get rid of discrimination and not a bunch of guys in Washington who are usually last to feel the pulse of the nation. If citizens are free to refuse others the rest of society can refuse to use the services offered by the person(s) they find being offensive. That's the whole thing about freedom, it isn't always perfectly packaged, it's controversial and messy.

Are you guys suggesting that the only thing that stops American citizens frpm being discriminatory towards others because of a passed Act? I have a feeling the majority of citizens are naturally tolerant and understanding and through this we experince lasting change. Sorry I don't share the overwhelming cynism some of you hold towards everyday people.

I agree with this in part.  You can't use legislation to change someone's heart.  But that's not what laws are designed to do.  Laws change or control behavior. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

  Laws change or control behavior. 

Society in general naturally does that, not the laws.

Its the  laws that change because of pressure from the people, not the other way around. There were laws that prohibited booze, but people overwhlmingly didnt obey them becasue they felt it was their right to put booze into their bodies. They beleived they had the freedom to choose and so the law changed. People, still get high off illegal substances, the law usually doesnt prevent someone from doing drugs, it's the lessons and examples learned from parents and teachers, etc... the drug laws are getting more and more lax everyday becasue people demand the freedom to put whatever they want in teir bodies. The overwhelming majority of people don't drink and drive becasue of a law as much I believe they dont drink and drive becasue there was a growing awarness of how it destroys lives. It was pressure from the victims/society that increased stiffer penalties. The people have a right to picket in front of a shop owners business if they feel that business is promoting values the rest of society deems not fit and in turn put financial pressure on that business to change it's values or risk going out of business.

[Skip8282]

Movements to end discrimination of many sorts don't usually start at the top and work their way down. The the types of movements that end discrimination start at a grassroots cultural level and work their way up. You guys always reference racism as if only blacks would experience it in Ron world, that is not the case. In a free society blacks could also refuse services to whites for example. As repugnant as racism or discrimination is, the underlying message her is still freedom to choose and the right to protect ones own property from government. People change through their own hands on experiences with eachother and I happen to believe that it's natural human evolution that will get rid of discrimination and not a bunch of guys in Washington who are usually last to feel the pulse of the nation. If citizens are free to refuse others the rest of society can refuse to use the services offered by the person(s) they find being offensive. That's the whole thing about freedom, it isn't always perfectly packaged, it's controversial and messy.

Are you guys suggesting that the only thing that stops American citizens frpm being discriminatory towards others because of a passed Act? I have a feeling the majority of citizens are naturally tolerant and understanding and through this we experince lasting change. Sorry I don't share the overwhelming cynism some of you hold towards everyday people.

Yeah, nice theoretical rant that has nothing to do with the issue.

The reality is that legalized discrimination was in effect, and was part of the law.  The civil rights act effectively did away with a good number of them.  Saying he would have left those discriminatory laws in tact just because he didn't like one goddamn provision of the act is sheer idiocy.

So you and the rest of RP troup can go on arguing whether the chicken or the egg came first, I'll vote for a politician that actually wants to deal with it the way it is, not the way it should be.

[Bindare_Dundat]

 I'll vote for a politician that actually wants to deal with it the way it is, not the way it should be.

lol

ok.....

The reality is that legalized discrimination was in effect, and was part of the law.  

So you are a wild animal, unable to understand and behave in a way that is humanly moral and just without (this particular) law I guess but don't paint me with the same brush. The beliefs of a few in power to alter/create laws don't make it a universal truth to everyone else. According to your arguement against freedom, the government should ignore your property rights and install cameras in your home to make sure no one is abusing anyone else.  Doesn't the protection of everyone in your home that may not br able to defend themselves trump your private property rights in this instance?

[Skip8282]

lol

ok.....

Yes, thank you.  RP has a lot of good ideas but a lot issues too.  Letters of Marque?  Afterall, Dog the bounty hunter would have done so much better a job than U.S. Navy Seals?  Just nuts.

So you are a wild animal, unable to understand and behave in a way that is humanly moral and just without (this particular) law I guess but don't paint me with the same brush. The beliefs of a few in power to alter/create laws don't make it a universal truth to everyone else.

The law was not directed at you or I specifically.  I don't need to paint any picture - history has already done that.  We know exactly how minorities were treated back then and exactly how segregation worked out for them.

According to your arguement against freedom, the government should ignore your property rights and install cameras in your home to make sure no one is abusing anyone else.  Doesn't the protection of everyone in your home that may not br able to defend themselves trump your private property rights in this instance?

Why don't we at least try to keep the discussion above the grade school level.

[Freeborn126]

Great retort.  Maybe moving pictures will help you understand his position, its not promoting racism, its promoting freedom and responsibility. I know you need someone to think for you and tell you how to live every moment of your life, you might actually love it.

Haha, damn Chris matthews gets absolutely owned in this interview.  He is such a piece of trash.   

[Dos Equis]

Society in general naturally does that, not the laws.

Society expresses its will by passing laws.  We will never end certain mindsets.  Some people will always have narrow minded viewpoints. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

Why don't we at least try to keep the discussion above the grade school level.

Really? How so? At least present an counter that incites some thought.

Although I did stray from the civil rights act theme in my example the overall defense of private property stays in tact. Your postion is that equal opportunity and equal protection under the law supercedes private property rights. I'm taking that same overall theme you're defending of protecting society from any abuse, by suggesting we should put cameras into every home to make sure no one is being abused. If you ignore the technical improbability of performing such a task and view it in a philosophical sense would you not be opposed to having the government facilitate such a move because it infringes on your private property?

[Deicide]

Really? How so? At least present an counter that incites some thought.

Although I did stray from the civil rights act theme in my example the overall defense of private property stays in tact. Your postion is that equal opportunity and equal protection under the law supercedes private property rights. I'm taking that same overall theme you're defending of protecting society from any abuse, by suggesting we should put cameras into every home to make sure no one is being abused. If you ignore the technical improbability of performing such a task and view it in a philosophical sense would you not be opposed to having the government facilitate such a move because it infringes on your private property?

Very well argued. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

Very well argued.  

Thanks.

I understand this is a "hot topic" but only because people are only looking at the surface of it. Dig a little deeper and you'll understand how important freedom is and the responsibilities that come with it are. If we as a group aren't ready to accept that, then we deserve totalitarianism.