It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:06 AM
reply to post by Scytherius

How saccharine of him.
His invite to the Bilderbergers
is in the mail.
One day he bashes the Patriot Act and
the next he calls for terrorizing the people.
Just another puppet.

3: ingratiatingly or affectedly agreeable or friendly

edit on 1-6-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:14 AM
I listened to the video clip by 'ThinkProgress5' and did not find anything wrong with it. Rand Paul was simply explaining how he would 'profile' people at the airport and it was to dismiss the notion of basing that 'profiling' on the basis of religion or skin color. What he was saying is that for national security purposes we should take into account if they have previously attended radical political speeches which advocate, in one way or another, violence towards, destruction of, or overthrow of the government of the United States.

Why should we not take that into account? If you have someone who is coming to your house would you not want to know if he has been talking with your neighbor who has been advocating your death? While we should never get carried away with the situation I do not see what he said as a reason to call up a witch hunt against him.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:46 AM
I couldn't find text to give anyone 'context' but here's Hannity's website for that day: May 26, 2011

You can download an MP3 of hour three and get the context of the excerpt for yourself.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:05 AM

Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
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

No, one cannot "legally."

That's the whole point. When other means are exhausted or are futile, when true change can't occur through the "accepted legal means" one must resort to something different.

I do NOT agree with bloodshed, but i DO agree with maintaining our rights as they were initially instituted.

One must have a large number of people to change through legal means (voting) and one must also have true choices. When these are no longer a feasible option:

whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You think they should have waited around for accepted legal means???

Although the circumstances are indeed different, the principle is the same.

That is the point. The government, like any entity, will fight against or outlaw that which threatens it.

Just because it is "illegal" doesn't mean it is wrong. That is submission to authority, that what "authority" says must be abided simply because authority says it. "Well, that's the law."

Where is right and wrong, ethics. You must turn in your Jewish neighbor because that is the law?

Little by little our rights and freedoms are whittled away, and when that happens anything that challenges that is illegal and therefore irrelevant to the larger cause/issue simply because it is illegal??? That seems to be the erroneous and insidiously convenient yet obedient premise of your post.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:20 AM
If our government provides JUSTICE and works well enough for the average person, people can talk all they want to talk as nasty as they want to talk and they will never overthrow it.

IF the state of the really....strong.

There are laws that can be followed...making terroristic threats, all that. No one has to go getting upset and trying to censure speech going after the political angle.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:28 AM
Once again, the apple has fallen a long way from the tree.

Jailing people merely for attending a speech?

And yes, Rand did say it (not Ron). I did listen to the video.

Unbelievable. Even Rand Paul needs to take a course on the meaning of liberty.

Alas, who in the Senate will stand up for it?

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by Misoir

Well said, normally I disagree with your posts, but here you are spot on.

I think a lot of people here are making the perfect the enemy of the good. Congress doesn't vote pro-freedom much anymore, Rand does, enough said.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:22 AM
reply to post by Liquesence

I agree. I'd like to point out that a government is a reflection of it's people. These politicians are in office because we put them there. How any politician got re-elected after voting for the Patriot Act leaves me wondering just how dumb are my fellow countrymen.

edit on 1-6-2011 by QuantumDisciple because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:52 AM
Amazing how people jump on the band wagon when this is so obviously taken out of context. He was speaking of Foreigners like exchange students from Muslms countries as opposed to molesting children at airports and what we ought to be looking for.

Here is the entire interview the context for this starts at about 8.48 for this part of the conversation if you don't want to listen to the whole interview.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:05 AM

this is a Think Progress propaganda item.

Think Progress is a subsidiary of
Center for American Progress (CAP)
which is George Soros funded

don't drink the kool-aid folks

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:10 AM
As much as i am no fan of Rand Paul, it seems that this audio has been cherry picked, from what I can tell he is talking about the profiling of potential terrorists who have been visiting and listening to extreme Islamic preachers, which is an understandable opinion, if it means doing away with TSA pat downs.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:15 AM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
it seems that this audio has been cherry picked,

you are correct sir
star 4 u

and published by the left
funded by Soros

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:18 AM
reply to post by Scytherius

Since your OP does not hold anywater can you find anymore examples of Ron Paul working against the constitutuin..

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:51 PM
He was referring to al qaeda members, not Americans, and certainly not people who attend his father's political rallies. Do you really think that he would go after people that attend his father's rallies? That seems like such a wild stretch it seems like a cheap cover to try and divide and conquer the Paul family. Come on guys, you can do better than this.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:16 PM
You can hear this on Sean Hannity. For those who are defending Paul claiming this was taken out of context, um, no, what you hear is exactly what he said. The context in the interview is how Rand would handle "racial profiling", his solution being that he would target those who attended radical political rallies. Exactly how he would differentiate those who attend radical political rallies from the rest of the population wasn't mentioned, I guess we'll just have to have tracking chips installed in our heads. But the truth is they already target anyone who attends radical political rallies, and have for a long time (at least since the '60's).

I can't see jailing or deporting someone just for listening or attending a political rally even if said rally called for violence.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:27 PM

Originally posted by beezzer

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


Ones that call for the violent overthrow of our government?

because that's what he was explicitly referring to.

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:34 PM
In any civilised society planning violence is a crime. Speech that overtly compels "incites" others to "imminently" go and commit crimes "unlawful action" is not covered by the first amendment.

(Judge Learned Hand)

Now... listening to or "attending" such a speech... I have trouble seeing the crime in that.

How do I know what the speaker is about to say? How am I even a co-conspirator if I have said nothing myself.

However, if I go to such an event and chant along with a crowd a call for imminent lawless action... then I'm conceivably in need of jailing.

Sri Oracle

edit on 1-6-2011 by Sri Oracle because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:07 PM
Guys, you really have to listen to the sound clip and understand the context in which it was said. The OP quoted a single line without quoting what he said prior.

By the way, politicians cannot openly endorse violent overthrow of the government, guess where they will end up? a jail cell, marked as a traitor and will not be able to help his constituents from his political position.

I don't understand the point of this thread when he mentioned the attendance of said events combined with other clues to violent radical activity will definitely get somebody in trouble.
edit on 1-6-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by Scytherius

Ron Paul said we may need to physically resist the federal government. But no politician is going to save us, that's for sure.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:46 AM

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by beezzer

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


Ones that call for the violent overthrow of our government?

because that's what he was explicitly referring to.

Sooo....the Tea Partiers?

Hear that Tea Party? Rand Paul wants to put you in jail. Sounds like he'd put the founding fathers in jail too. Keep defending him though, go ahead. Rand and Ron are just impervious to mistakes and misquotes, but not liberals...anything they say is set in stone.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in