Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

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

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

matthew8 wrote: »

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/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

matthew8 wrote: »

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

Overheal wrote: »

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

matthew8 wrote: »

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

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

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.

Overheal wrote: »

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

matthew8 wrote: »

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

matthew8 wrote: »

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.

InTheTrees

20Cent wrote: »

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

Ron Paul thinks...

White people discriminating against black people is just a way of exercising your free choice.

How come you hate america? You must be a (gasp) liberal?

:eek:

InTheTrees

Ron Paul thinks...

If you beat up someone weaker than you are and take all their possessions...

They are exercising their free choice not to defend themselves adequately. And I would be exercising my free choice to beat them up and take their stuff.

Praise the lord! Its an American libertarian Utopia!



(if you dont agree you're a liberal and therefore hate america and choice).

Overheal

InTheTrees wrote: »

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...

Yes... He does. That's probably why he said it. Not everything a politician says is a future-tense campaign promise.

Ron Paul thinks...

White people discriminating against black people is just a way of exercising your free choice.

When did he ever suggest that??

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

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.

The old "markets will solve everything argument". Doesn't exist in reality though. A white only store would do very well in many places.

matthew8

InTheTrees wrote: »

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.

Personally I prefer Gary Johnson to Ron Paul based on abortion and tax policy. The liberal movement used to be about freedom. It has been hijacked and changed so much it has no connection with what it used to be.

You fail to distinguish between calling someone a N***** and racist murder. I'm sorry if I generalise about liberals but liberals do it all the time wih conservatives and libertarians. Why should someone end up in a court of law for saying something about a group of people that has nothing to do with their actions? If I issued a press release saying that islam is a sexist, violent and intolerant religion based around a rapist who was a "prophet" (all fact by the way) I will appear in a court of law yet no one cares if I decide to place dress restrictions on them.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Ron Paul thinks...

White people discriminating against black people is just a way of exercising your free choice.

How come you hate america? You must be a (gasp) liberal?

:eek:

In the same way that blacks discriminating against whites is a way of exercising your free choice. But no one cares when blacks do that, it only matters if white people do it. If I own property it's my property and I have the right to do what I want with it. I can prosecute trespassers and burglars if they are not welcome in my house so I should be allowed show people that they are not welcome in my shop.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Ron Paul thinks...

If you beat up someone weaker than you are and take all their possessions...

They are exercising their free choice not to defend themselves adequately. And I would be exercising my free choice to beat them up and take their stuff.

Praise the lord! Its an American libertarian Utopia!



(if you dont agree you're a liberal and therefore hate america and choice).

When did he say this?

20Cent wrote: »

The old "markets will solve everything argument". Doesn't exist in reality though. A white only store would do very well in many places.

There's a thing called property rights. Blacks only stores could also appear. It is a shop's own loss if they won't allow blacks in.

Overheal

You fail to distinguish between calling someone a N***** and racist murder. I'm sorry if I generalise about liberals but liberals do it all the time wih conservatives and libertarians. Why should someone end up in a court of law for saying something about a group of people that has nothing to do with their actions? If I issued a press release saying that islam is a sexist, violent and intolerant religion based around a rapist who was a "prophet" (all fact by the way) I will appear in a court of law yet no one cares if I decide to place dress restrictions on them.

Why are you still dragging Dutch Politics into a discussion about a Libertarian US Presidential candidate?

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

Why are you still dragging Dutch Politics into a discussion about a Libertarian US Presidential candidate?

I didn't mention dutch politics and have no idea what you are talking about.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

There's a thing called property rights. Blacks only stores could also appear. It is a shop's own loss if they won't allow blacks in.

Segregated shops sounds great can't see why this libertarianism thing hasn't taken off :rolleyes:

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

Segregated shops sounds great can't see why this libertarianism thing hasn't taken off :rolleyes:

No true libertarian would ban blacks from their shop and we don't think that the government should practise segregation but we respect property rights.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

I didn't mention dutch politics and have no idea what you are talking about.

Geert Wilders? A Dutch Politician? You dragged him and his policies into this debate. Neither of which have any bearing on US Politics. You say that nobody would care if you placed restrictions on muslims yet you seem to fail to recall an incident from last year involving the construction of a Mosque several blocks away from Ground Zero. Strange, because it was headline news for weeks. Especially as similar mosque projects arose to controversy around the same time last year. So where do you justify the statement:

If I issued a press release saying that islam is a sexist, violent and intolerant religion based around a rapist who was a "prophet" (all fact by the way) I will appear in a court of law yet no one cares if I decide to place dress restrictions on them.

?

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

No true libertarian would ban blacks from their shop and we don't think that the government should practise segregation but we respect property rights.

Better hope all business owners and landlords are true libertarians then. Do property rights take precedence over human rights?

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

Better hope all business owners and landlords are true libertarians then. Do property rights take precedence over human rights?

It's not a human right to go on someone else's property. So one can't take precedence over the other. Any businessman with any sense would allow anyone into their shop.

Overheal wrote: »

Geert Wilders? A Dutch Politician? You dragged him and his policies into this debate. Neither of which have any bearing on US Politics. You say that nobody would care if you placed restrictions on muslims yet you seem to fail to recall an incident from last year involving the construction of a Mosque several blocks away from Ground Zero. Strange, because it was headline news for weeks. Especially as similar mosque projects arose to controversy around the same time last year. So where do you justify the statement:
?

I didn't mention him in that last post. Forget I ever mentioned him. Let's get back to the main point. Why can't you distinguish between calling someone a N***** and racist murder? Restricting free speech would do nothing about actual crimes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

InTheTrees wrote: »

If you beat up someone weaker than you are and take all their possessions...

They are exercising their free choice not to defend themselves adequately. And I would be exercising my free choice to beat them up and take their stuff.

Praise the lord! Its an American libertarian Utopia!

This cutting insight has literally enriched my day in every possible sense. Do you have any more insane caricatures for me to chuckle at?

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

Why can't you distinguish between calling someone a N***** and racist murder? Restricting free speech would do nothing about actual crimes.

I do distinguish. One is Hate Speech. One is Hate Crime. The only thing I do however, that you seemingly do not, is acknowledge the relationship between the two.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

I do distinguish. One is Hate Speech. One is Hate Crime. The only thing I do however, that you seemingly do not, is acknowledge the relationship between the two.

I don't think removing hate speech will destroy hate crime. If you were about to commit racist murder, would not being able to go on a racist slur in public change anything?