[Overheal]

Originally Posted by matthew8

Democrats tend to be free-speech hating "liberals" (That word has been bastardized so much it means the opposite of what it meant 100 years ago) rather than truly about personal freedom.

You realize that Free Speech and Personal Freedom aren't mutually inclusive right? You realize free speech can come into conflict with the Personal Freedom of others?

[matthew8]

Originally Posted by Overheal

You realize that Free Speech and Personal Freedom aren't mutually inclusive right? You realize free speech can come into conflict with the Personal Freedom of others?

If someone calls me a racist how does that diminish my freedom? It is ridiculous that Geert Wilders can end up in a court of law for saying the whole truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth about muslims but it goes unchecked when he actually takes away their freedom.

How can words take away freedom?

[Permabear]

Originally Posted by Duffy the Vampire Slayer

He doesn't seem to mind letting states tell people what to do though.

As a federalist libertarian, Ron Paul supports the strong states' rights imagined by the Founders. He sees the centralized system that evolved after the Civil War, in which the states became more and more emasculated while the important decisions were increasingly made in Washington, D.C., as a perversion of that original vision.

Paul believes that a truly federalist system would let enough political variety emerge that every citizen could find a system that suits him or her just by (at most) moving to a different state. If Jane wanted a European-style social democratic state with high taxes, lots of government control, and lots of social services, she could find one. If Joe wanted a state where he could smoke his pot and have the government leave him the hell alone, he could find one. There would be less antagonism between the states, because those that wished to adopt an "Obamacare" type system could simply do so, while those that didn't want Obamacare would not have to suffer the ignominy of having it foisted upon them against their will.

Much of the political tension in America today stems from the fact that conservatives want to pull the entire country in one direction, while liberals want to pull the entire country in a different direction. Paul understands that the whole nation does not have to march to the beat of one drummer. If Californian can go one way and Texas another, then the citizenry of both jurisdictions can be happy.

[InTheTrees]

Originally Posted by matthew8

How can words take away freedom?

Well its not about taking away freedoms, its about interferring with others.

You've never heard the test about crying fire in a crowded theatre?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoutin...rowded_theater

[InTheTrees]

Originally Posted by Permabear

Paul believes that a truly federalist system would let enough political variety emerge that every citizen could find a system that suits him or her just by (at most) moving to a different state. If Jane wanted a European-style social democratic state with high taxes, lots of government control, and lots of social services, she could find one. If Joe wanted a state where he could smoke his pot and have the government leave him the hell alone, he could find one. There would be less antagonism between the states, because those that wished to adopt an "Obamacare" type system could simply do so, while those that didn't want Obamacare would not have to suffer the ignominy of having it foisted upon them against their will.

Holy crap. I'd never heard that before. thats the creepiest thing I've heard in US politics since... since... david duke...

Why do you think there would be LESS antagonism amongst the states? When the minority refugees start moving north out of the racist southern states what makes you think it'll all be sweetness and love between the various states?

His proposal is that everyone should up and move to the state with the political system of their choice? Wtf? What if I'm a liberal and i live in Alabama and I happen to f'ing like living in Alabama? Ron Paul would want me to move to Massachusetts? Fcuk him.

Absolute lunacy. No wonder he doesnt stand a chance in hell of being elected to anything.

[Overheal]

Originally Posted by matthew8

If someone calls me a racist how does that diminish my freedom?

What about if someone calls you a N*****? Or a F*****? does that infringe on your freedom?

It is ridiculous that Geert Wilders can end up in a court of law for saying the whole truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth about muslims but it goes unchecked when he actually takes away their freedom.

How can words take away freedom?

Actually, it didn't go unchecked. He's been in and out of courts numerous times for incitement to hatred. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

[matthew8]

Originally Posted by Overheal

What about if someone calls you a N*****? Or a F*****? does that infringe on your freedom?


Actually, it didn't go unchecked. He's been in and out of courts numerous times for incitement to hatred. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ridiculous by you. I don't care what I'm called, it doesn't infringe on my freedom, tell me how being called a F***** or N***** infringes on my freedom.

His laws went unchecked but he was in court for his free speech which was exactly what I said.

You have failed to answer my question about how free speech takes away freedom.

[Overheal]

Originally Posted by matthew8

Ridiculous by you.

Perhaps you're confusing my quotation of something you said for something I said. In this example, I never used the word ridiculous.

I don't care what I'm called, it doesn't infringe on my freedom, tell me how being called a F***** or N***** infringes on my freedom.

His laws went unchecked but he was in court for his free speech which was exactly what I said.

You have failed to answer my question about how free speech takes away freedom.

I have no comment about his laws. I am not a follower of Dutch politics. I have no ready way of knowing how true or false your claims are that his laws were both unchecked and/or unlawful. This is the US Politics forum.

When you call your neighbor a N*****, etc. you are creating nothing but contempt and prejudice. What typically can result is that hate speech becomes hate crime. Then we hear about middle aged men using their SUV to run down women for being black (link). So to get back on the subject, Democrats/Liberals are not "Free Speech Hating" because they support laws which place certain limitations on the freedom of speech. That's like saying the NRA is a gun-hating organization because they promote weapon safety.

[Permabear]

Originally Posted by InTheTrees

His proposal is that everyone should up and move to the state with the political system of their choice? Wtf? What if I'm a liberal and i live in Alabama and I happen to f'ing like living in Alabama? Ron Paul would want me to move to Massachusetts? Fcuk him.

Yes, Ron Paul thinks that federalism, with stronger local government, would give people more choice. You seem to think that's a bad thing.

[20Cent]

Originally Posted by Permabear

Yes, Ron Paul thinks that federalism, with stronger local government, would give people more choice. You seem to think that's a bad thing.

If the local gov decide that white only shops or areas are ok then it would be a bad thing.

[matthew8]

Originally Posted by 20Cent

If the local gov decide that white only shops or areas are ok then it would be a bad thing.

Anyone that puts up a sign that says "no blacks allowed" would be stupid and would go out of business. Ron Paul said this himself when talking to Chris Matthews on MSNBC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHgq0qGbe8 . It's their property so they should be allowed decide who gets to go on it.

Originally Posted by Overheal

Perhaps you're confusing my quotation of something you said for something I said. In this example, I never used the word ridiculous.


I have no comment about his laws. I am not a follower of Dutch politics. I have no ready way of knowing how true or false your claims are that his laws were both unchecked and/or unlawful. This is the US Politics forum.

When you call your neighbor a N*****, etc. you are creating nothing but contempt and prejudice. What typically can result is that hate speech becomes hate crime. Then we hear about middle aged men using their SUV to run down women for being black (link). So to get back on the subject, Democrats/Liberals are not "Free Speech Hating" because they support laws which place certain limitations on the freedom of speech. That's like saying the NRA is a gun-hating organization because they promote weapon safety.

You are confusing saying something with actually doing it. Calling someone a N***** has nothing to do with running them down. If you say "I'm going to run you down with my jeep you F****** N*****" then that could be perceived as a threat but saying someone is a N***** has nothing to do with killing them. How would you describe liberals attitude towards free speech?

[Duffy the Vampire Slayer]

I'm wary of the 'states rights' argument as its been attached to some dubious causes in the past.

[Overheal]

Originally Posted by matthew8

You are confusing saying something with actually doing it. Calling someone a N***** has nothing to do with running them down. If you say "I'm going to run you down with my jeep you F****** N*****" then that could be perceived as a threat but saying someone is a N***** has nothing to do with killing them. How would you describe liberals attitude towards free speech?

I've already explained it to you. If you don't accept that there is a link between hate speech and hate crime that's entirely your problem. It has nothing to do with Ron Paul's election odds.

[InTheTrees]

Originally Posted by Permabear

Yes, Ron Paul thinks that federalism, with stronger local government, would give people more choice. You seem to think that's a bad thing.

Huh?



You said that ron paul says (I like how you distance yourself from him) that if you dont like the political system where you live you're free to move.

Does he not realise we can do that already without ron paul...

[InTheTrees]

Originally Posted by matthew8

You are confusing saying something with actually doing it. Calling someone a N***** has nothing to do with running them down. If you say "I'm going to run you down with my jeep you F****** N*****" then that could be perceived as a threat but saying someone is a N***** has nothing to do with killing them. How would you describe liberals attitude towards free speech?

The Glen Back school of Rhetoric...

If the question is difficult, start accusing "liberals" of being far worse. "yea ron paul wants to put minorities in refugee camps but Liberals hate america??"

Sure, sonny, i'm sure you have all the answers about what ron paul believes "liberals" feel about "free speech.

But your easy dismissals of our questions has endeared us so much to your point of view that I cant really be bothered anymore. I'm sure it works wonder in getting new supporters too.