Ron Paul on Eliot Spitzer: He acted badly but didn't deserve this

Politico ^ | 3/14/08 | Staff/Ron Paul

[pissant]

Someone needs to tell Ron Paul they did not use the patriot act to catch Spitzer.

[BGHater]

I think he has a problem of Gov’t tracking financial transactions of your money.

[DManA]

What’s he talking about? What entrapment?

Now if he wants to talk about eliminating this Orwellian law requiring banks to snitch on us when we spend our own cash, I’m listening.

[Allegra]

No more Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Acts! No more torture! No more Military Commissions Act! No more secret prisons and extraordinary rendition! No more abuse of habeas corpus! No more Patriot Acts!

"They tried to make me go to rehab
I said no, no, no."

[gridlock]

Objectively speaking, what Spitzer did was really not that bad. But he had been such a dick for so long to so many people for so long, the line to kick him when he is down stretches out the door and around the block.

Moral of the story: Don’t be a dick.

[Loyalist]

Wonder what Ron Paul’s client number is?

[pissant]

That’s fine and dandy, but the laws governing banking transactions were around long before 911

[the invisib1e hand]

didn't deserve what? He deserves to lose the public trust (he deserved it a long time ago); his wife should divorce him, and he should come face to face with what a disgrace he has been.

I hope for his sake he does. It's his only hope as a human to join the human race.

[The Mayor]

This is the exact argument being used in all the libertarian blogs.

[TCats]

That and the fact that it exposed him to extortion and manipulation by those whose services he was using. For example, granting of pardons.

[DManA]

Be nice to people on the way up ‘cause you may meet them again on the way down.

[Popman]

When 19 suicidal maniacs attacked us on 9/11,

Oh' No.

Ron Paul just lost half his base, the 9/11 truthers

[StolarStorm]

Yeah, its actually very disturbing that we are watched so closely. If the “watchers” were beyond corruption it could be ok, but they aren’t. I wonder how many blackmail attempts, insider trading and other “nice” activiites have been by those who get free access to our financial transactions, emails and other private info sources.

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

but he didn't deserve what happened to him.

BULLSH*T!!!

This scum bag, cum Czar, (no pun intended) got his comeuppance he so justly deserved and as there IS a GOD there is a distinct possibility he may become a statistic of the justice system he so abused in prosecuting and "persecuting" so many others--for no other reasons than personal aggrandizement and political gains.

[JoanVarga]

I'm with Meagan McArdle on this point: I think we should have more oversight, investigation, and detailed surveillance of our elected officials entrusted with National Security even on a State level. We do no less with military personnel, up to and including a "morality" clause.

Many CEOs and Presidents of large corporations have to agree to such a contract stipulation. Why shouldn't our "public servants" expect to be scrutinized at least as much as the rest of us?

And Ron Paul standing up for him puts him under the microscope, as far as I'm concerned.

-Joan

[the invisib1e hand]

Objectively speaking, what Spitzer did was really not that bad.

tell that to his wife and children, whom he has disgraced and publicly humiliated.

Tell that to the founders, who understood that freedom cannot exist without the moral rectitude worthy of it.

The term "objectively" implies some unbiased perspective; I challenge you on that. Your opinion is biased toward amorality, which is by no means "objective," it is immoral axiomatically.

[StolarStorm]

For all we know, his wife gave him consent. I know some people whose spouses don’t have much interest and have no problem with them engaging in occasional “breaks”.

[A_Former_Democrat]

He set himself up for blackmail, you idiot.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

This was hardly a “sting.”

[tacticalogic]

The term "objectively" implies some unbiased perspective; I challenge you on that. Your opinion is biased toward amorality, which is by no means "objective," it is immoral axiomatically.

And I'll challenge the objectivity of any "moral absolutes" argument.