Rand Paul: Jail those Who Attend 'Radical Political Speeches from Religious Leaders'

[BolshevikHunter]

Click on the link in the OP and listen closely to what Paul said in context. It's not as bad as it's being made out to be.

From the link: "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."

"Someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government...should be deported or put in prison."

That's what Osama bin Laden did--in another part of the world, but he was so effective almost three thousand Americans died and major damage was done to a large population center, the Pentagon, and airports worldwide who now have to charge crippling fees to people for their own security.

You're right, Metzor. Rand Paul's words have been shamefully distorted possibly by those more interested in Al Qaeda's success than America's.

It's a hard question. Folks who speak against the government who truly wish to do our Nation harm should be carefully watched. However, Folks who keep an eye on the ever growing Federal government and their corrupt anti-Constitutional ways should never be labeled or looked at as 'Terrorists".

The fact is, Once you give a corrupt government in any Nation the power to label anyone who questions them as terrorists, Everyone has given up their freedom. From then on, whoever in power labels you and your family as such, So it is. ~BH

 

[freedombecki]

Why linkage?

It seems not odd, but quite natural for a libertarian to believe restaurant owners have the right to serve anyone they goddamn want to serve, without being directed by the nanny state to "play nice."

I want to see the link in which Mr. Paul says such a thing. The distortion of this topic title that doesn't fit the context of Mr. Paul's meanings or his sentence for that matter has already gotten my attention. I want to know if this sort of parsing is consistently done in order to besmirch someone in the public arena who is an elected congresscritter who makes decisions with his votes over my life.

I am fully within my rights to ask for proof.

Toro's not quoting verbatum: Therefore a link isn't required. He is characterizing Rand Paul as a Libertarian. Why? Who the fuck knows: Paul is a REPUBLICAN. They are NOT Libertarian, hence the different parties. If you need to play "gotchya" then you should challenge the obvious distortion first.

Been there, done that: http://www.usmessageboard.com/3713904-post32.html

 

[freedombecki]

Seems a tad odd for a libertarian, especially one who says he supports allowing white restaurant owners to bar blacks from being served.

Link, please.

Rand Paul causes stir with civil rights comment | Reuters

Taken from your link: "Paul issued a statement that said he abhorred racial discrimination and backed the 46-year-old law."

That's a far cry from your assessment, sir.

 

[Toro]

Why linkage?

It seems not odd, but quite natural for a libertarian to believe restaurant owners have the right to serve anyone they goddamn want to serve, without being directed by the nanny state to "play nice."

I want to see the link in which Mr. Paul says such a thing. The distortion of this topic title that doesn't fit the context of Mr. Paul's meanings or his sentence for that matter has already gotten my attention. I want to know if this sort of parsing is consistently done in order to besmirch someone in the public arena who is an elected congresscritter who makes decisions with his votes over my life.

I am fully within my rights to ask for proof.

Toro's not quoting verbatum: Therefore a link isn't required. He is characterizing Rand Paul as a Libertarian. Why? Who the fuck knows: Paul is a REPUBLICAN. They are NOT Libertarian, hence the different parties. If you need to play "gotchya" then you should challenge the obvious distortion first.

Rand Paul says he is not a racist. I believe him. I think it is consistent for strict libertarians to oppose Civil Rights.

But this is about being consistent when applying standards. It is easy for a well-to-do white guy to say "I think white racists should have the right to bar black people from eating in their place of business." It is much harder to defend those same rights when someone or something offends you deeply. Just like it is much harder for a black to person to defend a the rights of a white racist to bar blacks from eating in his diner, it is harder for an American to defend the rights of a guy who hates Americans to say that we should kill Americans, compared to say a Pakistani educated in a Madrass.

Rand is being hypocritical for not applying the same libertarian standards to that which offends him.

 

[jillian]

Link, please.

Rand Paul causes stir with civil rights comment | Reuters

Taken from your link: "Paul issued a statement that said he abhorred racial discrimination and backed the 46-year-old law."

That's a far cry from your assessment, sir.

not really. paul's comment was that he would have "marched with martin luther king" but doesn't think government should burden businesses with "regulation" so he doesn't think they should be "Forced" to serve black people. cause you know, in the deep south, the unfettered marketplace would force the business owner to do the right thing.





(yeah, i know... its one of the stupidest things i've ever heard, too).

 

[freedombecki]

Senior Esposo says it's time to turn off the computer. See ya tomorrow.

 

[Toro]

Link, please.

Rand Paul causes stir with civil rights comment | Reuters

Taken from your link: "Paul issued a statement that said he abhorred racial discrimination and backed the 46-year-old law."

That's a far cry from your assessment, sir.

No. You are reading it wrong. Rand said that he wouldn't repeal the Civil Rights Act, but also said that he opposed the Civil Rights Act. You can be a libertarian and oppose the Civil Rights Act while abhorring racism. Paul says he abhors racism, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. But when asked directly if he support laws that desegregated lunch counters, he didn't say yes.

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...

Maddow:... How about desegregating lunch counters?
Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

Rand Paul On 'Maddow' Defends Criticism Of Civil Rights Act, Says He Would Have Worked To Change Bill (VIDEO)

 

[freedombecki]

Rand Paul causes stir with civil rights comment | Reuters

Taken from your link: "Paul issued a statement that said he abhorred racial discrimination and backed the 46-year-old law."

That's a far cry from your assessment, sir.

not really. paul's comment was that he would have "marched with martin luther king" but doesn't think government should burden businesses with "regulation" so he doesn't think they should be "Forced" to serve black people. cause you know, in the deep south, the unfettered marketplace would force the business owner to do the right thing.

(yeah, i know... its one of the stupidest things i've ever heard, too).

The Rand Paul I've heard: "Paul issued a statement that said he abhorred racial discrimination and backed the 46-year-old law."

I believe the man abhors racial discrimination.

 

[Avorysuds]

Rand Paul causes stir with civil rights comment | Reuters

Taken from your link: "Paul issued a statement that said he abhorred racial discrimination and backed the 46-year-old law."

That's a far cry from your assessment, sir.

not really. paul's comment was that he would have "marched with martin luther king" but doesn't think government should burden businesses with "regulation" so he doesn't think they should be "Forced" to serve black people. cause you know, in the deep south, the unfettered marketplace would force the business owner to do the right thing.





(yeah, i know... its one of the stupidest things i've ever heard, too).

Thanks for admitting you're full of shit and you pick and choose what you want to believe even when what really happened, what was really said, recorded and whatever is is needed to prove you wrong is staring your hack ass in the face.


Yeah, we get it… Obama is Bush 3 and you couldn’t prove that to be different if your life depended on it so you go out of your way to attack people by misrepresenting near everything they say in hopes no one gives full quotes making you look like the ass you are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From the link: "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison."

"Someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government...should be deported or put in prison."

Paul could quickly clear things up by simply stating those so accused would first receive a fair trial, have the right to challenge the state as to any charges, challenge any witnesses or evidence.

But Paul still errs with regard to his understanding of the First Amendment – one can not be prosecuted for promoting the violent overthrow of our government, per Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969):

[A law banning advocacy of a violent overthrow of the government] purports to punish mere advocacy [and thus] sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control. [E]xcept where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

 

[Samson]

I want to see the link in which Mr. Paul says such a thing. The distortion of this topic title that doesn't fit the context of Mr. Paul's meanings or his sentence for that matter has already gotten my attention. I want to know if this sort of parsing is consistently done in order to besmirch someone in the public arena who is an elected congresscritter who makes decisions with his votes over my life.

I am fully within my rights to ask for proof.

Toro's not quoting verbatum: Therefore a link isn't required. He is characterizing Rand Paul as a Libertarian. Why? Who the fuck knows: Paul is a REPUBLICAN. They are NOT Libertarian, hence the different parties. If you need to play "gotchya" then you should challenge the obvious distortion first.

Rand is being hypocritical for not applying the same libertarian standards to that which offends him.

Ergo: Rand is NOT a LIBERTARIAN

He is a REPUBLICAN that cherry picks from the Libertarian Tree.

However, I cannot find fault in the quote, which parapharitically simply says that:

Anyone wishing to participate in Anti-US Government activity outside the USA should not be allowed into the USA because they would be a likely source of danger for US citizens.

or that

Anyone wishing to open a private business in the USA may run their business any damn way they want in the USA.

To me there's a HUGE difference between Anti US Government INSIDE the US (actually encouraged within the citizenry) and Anti US Government activity OUTSIDE the US (people we drop bombs on).

Viewing these two concepts as anywhere near similar is typical Liberal broad-brushing that allows the simple minded to believe 2+2= 5, because, after all, we shouldn't "discriminate" between numbers: It would be unfair.

 

[dblack]

Ergo: Rand is NOT a LIBERTARIAN

He is a REPUBLICAN that cherry picks from the Libertarian Tree.

I think it's more likely the other way around. Regardless, it's the sort of political ploy I find detestable, and speaks more of ambition than integrity.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Rand is going to have to learn that the media takes everything very literal when dealing with conservatives.

Being a political newby and the son of a famous pol is going to put him in the spot light a little more than he's ready for.

As soon as he learns to explain everything he says, as he says it, the better off he will be.

 

[BenNatuf]

Evidently there's a federal judge in TX who believes attending a HS graduation is a radical enough rally to throw you in jail if you mention a radical concept like "prayer".

Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony - FoxNews.com

 

[bodecea]

Wait wait wait.... Are we talking about citizens or people visiting from other countries? That kind of makes all the difference.

Maybe it also makes a difference what religion the religious leaders espouse?

 

[bodecea]

Evidently there's a federal judge in TX who believes attending a HS graduation is a radical enough rally to throw you in jail if you mention a radical concept like "prayer".

Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony - FoxNews.com

Throw you in jail?

 

[blu]

this quote is being deliberately misconstrued. they were referring to people who go overseas to attend rallies by radical islamic clerics (including those by taliban & al qaeda spiritual leaders)

 

[BenNatuf]

Evidently there's a federal judge in TX who believes attending a HS graduation is a radical enough rally to throw you in jail if you mention a radical concept like "prayer".

Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony - FoxNews.com

Throw you in jail?

do you read the links?

Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”

He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program.

“These terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks,'” the judge’s order stated. His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s name] we pray.”

Should a student violate the order, school district officials could find themselves in legal trouble. Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.”


Read more: Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony - FoxNews.com

 

[Samson]

Ergo: Rand is NOT a LIBERTARIAN

He is a REPUBLICAN that cherry picks from the Libertarian Tree.

I think it's more likely the other way around. Regardless, it's the sort of political ploy I find detestable, and speaks more of ambition than integrity.

You're quite naive if you believe there are politicians that don't borrow from other dogma.

 

[BenNatuf]

this quote is being deliberately misconstrued. they were referring to people who go overseas to attend rallies by radical islamic clerics (including those by taliban & al qaeda spiritual leaders)

They can include aliens who attend La raza rallies if they like.