What good is it to win if you don't stand for anything? This is very disappointing.
BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY – Leading United States Senate candidate Rand Paul today criticized the Obama administration’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try terrorism suspects in United States Civil Courts. “Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”
“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”
Lew Rockwell is right to stay away from the dirty business that is politics. Rand Paul deceived his supporters, and took money from them without telling them about his fundamental ideological differences with his more principled and honest father.
Sukrit Sabhlok: What good is it to win if you don't stand for anything? This is very disappointing. BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY – Leading United States Senate candidate Rand Paul today criticized the Obama administration’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try terrorism suspects in United States Civil Courts. “Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.” Lew Rockwell is right to stay away from the dirty business that is politics. Rand Paul deceived his supporters, and took money from them without telling them about his fundamental ideological differences with his more principled and honest father.
Hmm, disappointing indeed.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Well that is a fundamentally retarded position to take if you want to have anything to do with principles, let alone a revolutionary movement. No doubt he's either going 'right wing opportunism' in an effort to win the Senate seat, or he actually believes it. Both as bad as each other.
http://www.cfr.org/bios/13303/ron_paul.html#2
Military Tribunals and Guantanamo Bay
When asked where he stands on Guantanamo in June 2007, Rep. Paul (R-TX) replied, “Shut it down” (Muckraker Report). “This is an issue that flies in the face of our civic and legal traditions as outlined in the Constitution.” he said.
Paul voted against the Military Commissions Act.
People were saying on that page, that it might have been forged. I don't know. I don't really care. Ron Paul is enough for me.
Amadeus: People were saying on that page, that it might have been forged. I don't know. I don't really care. Ron Paul is enough for me.
Yeah, but Ron Paul is not going anywhere. He's too old.
Wow. Rand Paul is a fascist, and totally ignorant to boot. "Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution" is a completely nonsensical statement. First, because we do not know they are terrorists (that would be entire point of that pesky "trial" thing). Second, because there's no reason given for why "foreigners" should be denied Constitutional protection. Third, because it makes zero sense to try criminals in military tribunals.
Hopefully nobody here will donate another dime to this guy.
Cork: Wow. Rand Paul is a fascist, and totally ignorant to boot. "Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution" is a completely nonsensical statement. First, because we do not know they are terrorists (that would be entire point of that pesky "trial" thing). Second, because there's no reason given for why "foreigners" should be denied Constitutional protection. Third, because it makes zero sense to try criminals in military tribunals. Hopefully nobody here will donate another dime to this guy.
Hardly surprising, I suspected a rat back when he was on Fox News arguing with others about whether he should run as a Republican or something else.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
He won't last long. Most voters are broke. The producers were donating to him from what I can see. He will be taking special interest money now. I wonder what his father thinks? That has to suck.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
Wow. Sounds very bad on the looks of it.
That's a cryin' shame. Maybe he didn't really say it or it was misinterpreted in some way. I'm looking forward to a follow up on this.
No2statism:Maybe he didn't really say it or it was misinterpreted in some way.
Nope. He really said it. It's on his official website.
Apparently there was more, but his editor deleted portions of the press release. The whole thing has the stench of rottenness about it.
lol and the gradualist will have to find one other person to put all their chips in to bet on. much like the president. every four years many people put all their chips in on one person and think he or she will stop world hunger, cure AIDS, bring peace, make the economy a boom, hold babies to show how nice and kind they are.
And did I mention world peace.
This isn't how star wars turned out. I thought the father was supposed to be the evil one that in the end turns good?
Goddammit. I should have known it was too good to be true...
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Sounds like someone should be leafing the Rand Paul forums [ if there is such a place ] with statements concerning the consistency of the Mises institute. There will be many who flew sinking ships.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Fairly consistent with the opinions of Ayn Rand.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Despite having started this thread, I must say that Rand Paul still deserves support. He's linked to Ron Paul (a good man) and plus he's the best candidate out there, especially in his views on the Federal Reserve - one of the roots of the problems America faces.
When Ayn Rand died, they put her back together Robocop style to make the half-Ron Paul half-Ayn Rand cyborg.
This person, instead of having "hippie libertarian" views, has a perfectly rational Objectivist viewpoint on all things.
It's for the best.
More of these robocops will be made to run the minarchist society that has police who only follow law and order and rational morality.
John Ess: When Ayn Rand died, they put her back together Robocop style to make the half-Ron Paul half-Ayn Rand cyborg. This person, instead of having "hippie libertarian" views, has a perfectly rational Objectivist viewpoint on all things. It's for the best. More of these robocops will be made to run the minarchist society that has police who only follow law and order and rational morality.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
"If only we had the right people in charge, everything would be perfect!"
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
I find it tragically hilarious that people feel that Rand Paul has an obligation to be like his father, without any regard to his individual rights as a person, whether one agrees with whatever comes out of his mouth or not.I mean.... that traitor!!!!
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul.
I hear a lot of talk like this on conservative talk radio.
Here's the question. Are our constitutional rights a privilege granted to us from our government? Without gov't granting these rights to us we would could not otherwise have them? Like say the right to defend your own life with a weapon, say it be a gun, or whatever means are necessary? And gov't has the right to revoke those rights at will? Or are our constitutional rights just natural rights and that every human being has these rights because they are human beings? Now, most countries in the world have oppressive governments and/or statism and both are the opposite of freedom. Because most gov'ts don't permit citizens to have/exercise their natural rights, the USA has the power to revoke or not permit their citizens to have those rights either?
Because an aggressor commits an act of force against another individual, or a group of individuals, and that force creates a loss of value to those victims, I don't believe that the aggressor now has forfeited his natural rights. And what gives gov't the right to revoke that individual's natural rights? Those terrorists owe reparations to all of their victims. And if gov't and its military are to be good for something, one thing they should do is to make sure those terrorists are productive enough during their incarceration to earn their own food & shelter (so my wealth that gov't confiscates through taxation does not support their life) and for them to also earn enough to make reparation payments to their victims. If they are responsible for vicimizing hundreds or thousands of people, then I guess they got a large debt to repay.
Nitroadict: I find it tragically hilarious that people feel that Rand Paul has an obligation to be like his father, without any regard to his individual rights as a person, whether one agrees with whatever comes out of his mouth or not.I mean.... that traitor!!!!
I think that people are just outraged not because of any sense of obligation but because it is such a perplexing case. If were tutored by Murray Rothbard for much of your life and looked up to him, wouldn't people be confused and somewhat disheartened if you started acting like Paul Krugman?
Nitroadict: I find it tragically hilarious...
I find it tragically hilarious...
But who's going to hold the babies?!!
Ron Paul has endorsed a bunch of other neo-cons too... I don't understand his strategy :(
http://www.libertypac.net/html/federal.html
I understand it. He's a politician.
Vote for Rand anyway.
This whole question of trial or no-trial is just publicity for the Obama administration because they have lower than expected public rankings.
There is no good reason to help people get rights if they deny these rights to other people.
In Russia, there was a film in the eighties portraying a generic dictator (basically Stalin/Beria), which asked the question: Can he be buried when he dies? Answer: No, because even putting him into the ground would imply forgiving him despite his murders.
Vote? Wow, that's the last thing on my mind. I don't give up my responsiblity that easily.
Would I prefer him to another senator? Sure. Preference of A versus not A is enough.
Rand Paul versus some socialist? My vote goes to Rand (if I lived in Kentucky... does anybody here live in Kentucky?)
He kindof ran as a "Ron Paul II" and he was aware of it. He also campaigned for his father. Also, it's one thing to hold views counter to liberty, it's another trying to enforce them federally. Rand is a horrible man from what I've seen, he's a disgrace to his name and to all those who he had the privilege to meet and speak to during his childhood. Just imagine that this guy grew up around Rothbard and the likes, amazing how he can be so unprincipled.
all governmental politicians are socialists. They are all advocating socializing something aka redistributing something by coercion.
I had my concerns about this guy, and now my concerns have been realized. I did not give any money to his campaign. His interviews were too wishy-washy. I was really disappointed with Lew Rockwell's interview of him. There was no substance in the interview. This guy is just a war-mongering sicko. I see there are those of you that think voting for him is better than voting for someone else. Well, I myself would never vote for "the lesser of two evils", because I don't vote for evil, and if you believe in evil, this guy is evil. He is happy to spend your money on his pet projects, which include killing innocent people and harming other peaceful people (if you look at his anti-immigration stance). This guy is a schmuck. I hope he loses and goes away.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
I watched a speech of his in Kentucky months ago and I distinctly remember him advocating for the United Nations. He said I know they are criminals but what's wrong with having a forum to discuss at.
Yet the problem with that is the UN doesn't simply talk. They try to enact policies and individual countries sometimes go along with these policies. Rand seems uneducated about the issue.
Agreed.
Further, I dislike with the very concept of Constitutional rights. Implicit in the phrase "Constitutional rights" is the idea that our rights are derived from the existence of a government document.
Same with "legal rights". That's why I prefer the term "human rights", rights which are derived from the sanctity of human life. A child who is being gassed by Saddam Hussein has no "Constitutional rights", but he has human rights.
Too funny, aren't you guys the ones who don't believe in the constitution? Either you believe in the constitution and the U.S. Government or not? Make up your minds! (can't stop laughing).
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
we don't believe that it acts legitimately, however we do believe that it exists. The US government does indeed exist. There is a constitution.
The constitution does not make legitimate the crimes acted out by those who champion the constitution and say that what they do is not bad, since the 'constitution' makes it so.
plus its hard to be angry at something that does not exist. i hate the state. it exists. i hate it.
Poptech: (can't stop laughing).
where is the humour?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
So why do you care if Rand Paul supports something you consider illigitimate?
for the same reason i care if anyone supports something that is illegitimate.
it is ugly to support the illegitimate.
But according to the posters here, he is not supporting what you consider illigitimate! Too funny.
are you trying to tell me he is not supporting military (monopoly) justice against 'foreign enemies' ?
I don't know if he plays it...