Rand Paul calls for Jailing People Who Attend "Radical Political Speeches"

It consistently amazes me that people, many people, idolize any of these idiots. They will pick one thing the person says and listen to nothing else. Or, they will have such enmity for the "other side", they will stop thinking for themselves. The most obvious example of this are the useful idiots that follow News Entertainment and don't do research outside of the bumper sticker platitudes.

Ron Paul is one such individual who is idolized by a few for his "love of freedom", standing up against the Patriot Act, blah, blah, blah. He is no different. If he were in charge, and you didn't toe his line, he'd jail you without a second thought and try you for Treason. Today he said:

"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."

www.youtube.com...

They are all just two sides of the same coin.

do you realize that Rand and Ron are two different people?

reply to post by readytorevolt

The apple is not very far from the tree.
It miight be stuck on the limb to tell you the truth.

Rand is a bit of an idiot.

Ron's policies will save the country regardless.

So does this mean I should vote for Obama?

reply to post by readytorevolt



Roflolmao!!
You beat me to it.
Ron, Rand they are similarly spelled.

reply to post by Scytherius


Wow. Just wow. I've always thought highly of Rand Paul. And while I would agree with him in part, the way our country is going, changing definitions, changing laws. . .
Carrying a sign might even be perceived as violence.

Since I have been a part of radical political speeches in the past, this does trouble me.

S&F

reply to post by SteveR


They both are Ayn Rand will guide us to Utopia believers. But it will lead to dictatorship.

www.orthodoxytoday.org...

For politics, of course, arise, though the author of Atlas Shrugged stares stonily past them, as if this book were not what, in fact it is, essentially — a political book. And here begins mischief. Systems of philosophic materialism, so long as they merely circle outside this world's atmosphere, matter little to most of us. The trouble is that they keep coming down to earth. It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life that mischief starts. In a age like ours, in which a highly complex technological society is everywhere in a high state of instability, such answers however philosophic, translate quickly into political realities. And in the degree to which problems of complexity and instability are most bewildering to masses of men, a temptation sets in to let some species of Big Brother solve and supervise them.

One Big Brother is of course, a socializing elite (as we know, several cut-rate brands are on the shelves). Miss Rand, as the enemy of any socializing force, calls in a Big Brother of her own contriving to do battle with the other. In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls "productive achievement" man's "noblest activity," she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau. She might object that she means much, much more; and we can freely entertain her objections. But in sum, that is just what she means. For that is what, in reality, it works out to. And in reality, too, by contrast, with fiction, this can only head into a dictatorship, however benign, living and acting beyond good and evil, a law unto itself (as Miss Rand believes it should be), and feeling any restraint on itself as, in practice, criminal, and, in morals, vicious — as Miss Rand clearly feels it to be. Of course, Miss Rand nowhere calls for a dictatorship. I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship.

That is a article from 1957 about her books ideas. So will the nomenklatura run the world as dictators in the end?

Honestly, I dont disagree with him. I want people planning the violent overthrow of our government jailed or deported. IF there is a majority who is violently overthrowing the government, then what the government plans to do with them is pretty irrelevant, isnt it?

But there is no part of me at all that thinks that allowing small bands of nutters to plot or attempt the violent overthrow of the government unchallenged is a good idea. As long as our Constitution is in place, there are many other avenues for reform that should be utilized first. Violent revolution should always be the last, most desperate option and should only be taken as a course by a disgruntled majority when democracy and our system fails our best sincere efforts to make it work.

My two cents.

First of all, it is Rand Paul there, not Ron Paul. Second of all, this was taken out of context..... I would like to hear the whole coversation, not a little snippet.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by readytorevolt

 

The apple is not very far from the tree.
It miight be stuck on the limb to tell you the truth.

I wish this were true. Ron is a great man and steadfast in his beliefs, his son could learn a lot from him. Up until this point I had some hopes for Rand, and regardless of what he said on Hannity, he put up a hell of a fight last week against the USA PATRIOT Act.

On what he said: I don't think he intended this as an affront to the 1st Amendment, for he has defended it already, but instead as a better focus than what's currently going on (babies having their diapers checked by TSA, for example). I think he does need to better explain what he meant by it, but I will hold off jumping on his throat (for now).

Violent revolution is well supported by the founding documents and words of the founding fathers. You can't stop reasonable discussion and deportation or imprisonment for attending "speeches" is a great reason to overthrow the government! the reset button should have been hit years ago. It is too late now and all that can be done is damage control in my opinion. It doesn't surprise me one bit to hear him say this.

reply to post by Scytherius


I would probably never vote for Rand Paul anyhow. However, I would most definitely vote for Ron Paul. Rand Paul seems a bit too neo-con for me. He has the message of his father in one regard, yet it is twisted to support the continuation of the status quo. My two-cents at least.

I disagree with what he said in that clip, but I'd like to hear the rest of it because it cut off at the end of what Think Progress wanted us to hear. Until then I can make no judgement.

/TOA

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by SteveR

 

They both are Ayn Rand will guide us to Utopia believers.

That is one of the most retarded sentences i have ever read on ATS

What does this thread have to do with Ron Paul?

reply to post by SmokeandShadow


Americans have tons of non violent options for change. All manner of strikes, protests, etc. We have barely even tried in any real concerted way to push our democracy into real working form, and if we cant get enough people to protest in a non violent way, the idiots plotting the overthrow would just hang for their trouble anyway.

Unless they were well connected and had access to some exceptional weaponry and I seriously doubt they would be the kind of people we want overthrowing our government violently.

Too many people envision themselves as the over throwers. For a more realistic picture, imagine the people you least would want in charge of the country freely plotting and organizing to overthrow it. Whatever the boogieman looks like for you. The whole point of our nation and all its little checks and balances is to comes as close as possible to eliminating the need for violent revolt.

Americans will not even go on a TV strike, and endure the great suffering and pain of turning off the boob tube for a month or so to send a message. We are hardly in any position for a popular uprising that wasnt orchestrated by the very people we would least want in charge.

The operative word was/is "violent overthrow of the government." You can not legally plan/attend a violent coop in this country. I agree with Mr. Paul

reply to post by Scytherius


This apparent idea by Rand Paul is completely idiotic. How can you charge people for HEARING select combinations of words? Its understandable that he could support jailing someone who is advocating violence. But jailing someone for HEARING someone who is advocating violence? Its an extreme rights violation. I can only figure there is context getting left out because I don't believe Rand Paul would actually support such an idea.

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


Armed and dangerous overthrow?

Bachmann said, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”

There are 2 problems here:

1) Here's someone whose political methodology is to throw out an out-of-context soundbite and not only THEMSELVES judge that person, but expect YOU to also judge on that dishonest basis (does anything about this seem familiar?). Apparently that works pretty well, though, as most of you just jumped on the statement without looking for context or thinking about its complexities.

2) This IS how politics is played in this country, like it or not. If you don't EDUCATE YOURSELVES and refuse to listen some unknown yahoo with unknown motives, you get the kind of government you deserve. And see where that's gotten us....