Posted on 09/23/2007 10:47:55 AM PDT by LdSentinal
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul contends that the federal government has overreacted by limiting personal freedom in the wake of terrorist attacks six years ago, noting more people die on U.S. highways in less than a month’s time compared to the number who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001.
“We have been told that we have to give up our freedoms in order to be safe because terrorism is such a horrible event,” Paul said today to more than 1,000 supporters who attended a rally at a downtown Chicago hotel ballroom.
“A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways, but once again, who owns the highways? Do we own the highways? No. It’s a government institution you know. …We need to put all this in perspective.”
More than 2,970 people were reported dead in the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Federal highway traffic statistics show an average of 3,509 people a month were killed on the nation’s highways in 2001.
(Excerpt) Read more at weblogs.baltimoresun.com ...
“However, since 9/11 was not precepitated by a state (as far as we know), but by a stateless entity, Paul thought that private rebuttal would be appropriate and that the risk of neverending intervention by the state plus the monetary cost would edge out in the cost benefit ratio.”
The fact remains that these ‘stateless entities’ could not flourish without the cooperation of states. Or, at least states without the power to crush the ‘stateless entities’ within.
“This may be why Paul has such devoted followers, even if somewhat small in number, because they find these non politician answers both refreshing and valid.”
Any time a politician tells you that he is not a politician, that his actions are based upon core principals, you can be sure he is lying through his teeth. Ron Paul is a politician too. He just focuses on a different constituency. I fully believe he takes many of the positions he takes as ‘red-meat’ for that small and vocal community.
“Well, take care, nice to have a rational conversation on here for once. :)”
Ping me anytime. Speaking of rational discussions, have you seen this thread: “Congress Denounces Iran’s Ahmadinejad [Ron Paul moves to the left of Kucinich; votes nay]”?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1901940/posts
Regular foodfight with the mods giving time outs to a couple of folks. (starts about post 306 and goes down hill rapidly between bcsco and screaming fist, admin gives a time out at 412 to both, later reinstates bcsco after ‘review’ and bans screaming fist).
blech, what a bunch of useless high school chit chat, jmeagan was the only one saying anything of substance over there. :)
Two things to remember:
A thing can be of substance even if you disagree with it.
Not all things you agree with are of substance.
Part 2
3. The judge really lost me when he equated “anarchists” with “enemy combatants”. The “anarchists” were not engaging US forces on a battlefield while in civilian clothes. The most correct treatment of such persons is summary execution. That we keep them alive (and in good health) one minute longer than we have to is an act of mercy, or of stupidity, or both, and I can only hope that there is some benefit to doing so.
4. I would like to ask the judge to fill in the blank:
“Befor 9-11 I had the liberty to _________, and I can no longer do so because of eeeeeevil Booooooooooosh.”
Can you fill that blank for me, or do I have to go watch more videos?
What about the next time, Mr. Paul? And the time after that ...?
/bump
RE: “Time to check Paul’s off shore accounts to see if he is being paid by Islamofacists to put this suicidal garbage out.”
I don’t think he’s playing to the Islamofacists, I think he’s playing to his base (just like all the REST of them). ...HIS base just happens to believe in smaller government. (What a refreshing concept!)
I don’t think he’s even remotely electable, and I have not really been paying too much attention to him recently for that reason but, if you take a look here... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
...you may just find more with which you agree than that with which you disagree. (...Well, actually, I certainly can’t speak for anyone else, but at least that was true in MY case.)
...Just something to consider... along with everything else...grin.
bump, I can’t believe I missed this thread.
9/11 was an act of WAR (actually, one of many by the jihad movement)
Highway deaths are the result of accidents or negligence.
Any questions?
Yes, there is a good, very conservative Republican challenging him for his seat, and he has even taken several former Ron Paul staffers over to his campaign who were disgusted with Paul.
“You’re about as likely to be killed by a lightning strike as by a terrorist attack.”
Would you like to re-think that statement. Tell that to the 3000 who died on 9/11, o’ sorry you can’t they won your lighting strike lottery.
Since no mere mortal knows the future any frequency or effectiveness of an attack can only be estimated from past experience, but certain things can be deduced about the future based on certain known criteria.
The enemy want’s to hit us.
They would like to do as much damage as they are capable.
There goal is to distract us from defending our middleastern interests long enough to aquire more power and a wealthy state from which they can attack in a more conventional manner, there neighbors, thus aquiring more power until they can mount an effective world wide conflict for the dominance of Islam.
Would you prefer to fight them now when they are weak, or latter when they have the power of the atom under thier control.
We already waited to long in my opinion, they started this war in the seventies with the taking of the hostages in Iran. We should have crushed them then and many opportunities have presented themselves every few years and yet to this day our leaders believe that Islam is a religion of peace and refuse to understand that it must be distroyed before it destroys us.
The lives that have been lost to this date to the enemy will pale in comparison to what is coming because our leader like Chamberlin beleave a lie. Bush will be seen as a poor idealistic fool who had the oppertunity to end this now but chose not to because he believes that evil is weaker than good and that reason will win out over religious ferver. He is sadly mistaken.
I a ‘Christian’ like my Islamic enemy will never submit to thier evil belief system or thier god. It’s going to come down to him or me, I choose me!
Mark my words this conflict wil make WWII seem quaint by comparison.
The head of the “Tin-Foil Hat” brigade spouts brilliance yet again.
He was pointing out that Jews who were prosecuted with similar wartime restrictions on liberty because they opposed the US involvement in WW1 were termed 'anarchists' in order to penalize them. This was a simple manipulation of language that was intended to make the government's case look stronger.
WTH is wrong with deporting foreigners without a trial?
I recommend you go back and watch the speech again. Judge Napolitano points out that anyone can be deemed an enemy combatant, including citizens. All that high-brow talk about these laws being confined to those with traffic with foreigners, or to foreigners themselves, is incorrect.
Habeas corpus has been effectively suspended for all Americans. The right to a trial by jury has been effectively suspended for all Americans. The freedom from unreasonable search and seizure has been suspended for all Americans.
Befor[e] 9-11 I had the liberty to _________
I knew that the Bill of Rights protected me in courts across the land. I believed that the government would not be able to invade my home, bug my communications, or imprison me without due process. I also trusted that in a disaster, the government would permit me to rely on my second amendment rights to defend my home and property. I trusted that warrants would be required before the government could open my financial records. I trusted that I would be informed if the government did get such a warrant. That and more is gone now.
It wasn't 9/11 that changed everything. It was our elected leaders who were responding to it. As Judge Napolitano comments, most in congress were not even permitted to read the Patriot Act because they were told there wasn't time. I'll add that I trusted that the government would defend our borders and deport Islamists, and prevent more Islamists from entering the country after 9/11. That has not been the case, either. In fact, this very situation with continued Islamic immigration and lax border security (that has been permitted to continue) has been used as justification for further tampering with our liberties. This is wrong.
Of course you may disagree with me, but Judge Napolitano, a patriot, a FOX News anchorman, and talented legal specialist with a long history of legal involvement in conservative causes opened my eyes to these changes.
We are not safer when the Constitution is abandoned. We are not safer when we take the liberties away that we have fought so hard to enshrine and defend.
The first amendment is one of them. If you're a banker, and the government decides to secretly access an American citizen's bank account, you can be sent to jail for 5 years if you talk about it with anyone.
I recommend that you watch the videos.
So, the cherished liberty whose loss you feel so deeply is the inviolable, sacred Right To Talk About The Government Secretly Accessing A Bank Account? And this right, you believe, follows directly from the First Amendment?
By the way, bankers and bank employees are subject to a far more gigantic and restrictive list of regulations on what they can and can't say/do than just this. They can't share inside information about their clients or negotiations with clients, for example. I guess the First Amendment is dead! Either that or banking is, um, a heavily-regulated industry for quite rational reasons.
There are also many other areas in life where you can get in trouble for tipping off subjects that they are under investigation (which is, one guesses, what this regulation is effectively about). Depending on the scenario, presumably this could get you in trouble for anything from contempt of court to participating in a criminal conspiracy.
I wasn't aware, therefore, that the First Amendment was designed to allow citizens to tip off criminal suspects and thwart government investigations. I guess I'll just take your word for it then, and rest assured, you do have my deepest sympathies for having lost that precious right you once enjoyed to tell suspects that the government accessed their bank account information, knowledge you gained by virtue of having a position of responsibility in a bank. I am shedding tears over the loss of our once-great republic this represents as we speak.
The Stamp Act wouldn’t have bothered you a bit, then.
Because (a) The Stamp Act and (b) the government prohibiting bankers from discussing their privileged knowledge of government investigation into suspects' finances are similar in the following way(s): ____________________________
?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.