• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rand Paul - What First Amendment?

G

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
That brilliant younger Paul, has decided that the first amendment isn't important I guess. He states that anyone listening to violent hate speeches should be thrown in jail or deported.

Link

PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. 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.
Click to expand...

I thought he wanted civil liberties? I guess not.

And before anyone comes in with the usual cluelessness saying that this is legal, no it's not, the USSC said it was illegal 40 years ago.

Brandenburg vs Ohio
 
soundforbjt said:
Once again a conservative (spidey) is against constitutional rights when it suits his ideology.
Click to expand...

Sen. Paul was simply making the case for why profiling works and why it should be used. If foreigners come in and try to make war against the US then we should deport them or lock them up, that simple.

Such tactics were recently used to nail two terrorists here in KY just yesterday. Smelled like terrorist, looked like terrorist, fit the profile to a tee and they got busted. Profiling WORKS.

Little jihadis going to mosques that preach terror and war against the infidel SHOULD be investigated as well as any who support them.
 
soundforbjt said:
Once again a conservative (spidey) is against constitutional rights when it suits his ideology.
Click to expand...

It is a sound ideology to oppose Islamic terrorism.

The question on how to legally deal with it is a good debate over what we can or cannot do. The problem is not what we do to them, but what precidence our actions against them set. For our government's treatment of the rest of us will be based on that, and therein lies the danger.
 
first Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution and now this retarded bullshit too

PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. 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.
Click to expand...

holy contradictions batman, this guy is losing his mind
 
Jaskalas said:
It is a sound ideology to oppose Islamic terrorism.

The question on how to legally deal with it is a good debate over what we can or cannot do. The problem is not what we do to them, but what precidence our actions against them set. For our government's treatment of the rest of us will be based on that, and therein lies the danger.
Click to expand...
Well said. Of course, my liberal side is outraged that Paul has shirked his Congressional duty of sending snaps of his junk to coeds everywhere just to take up the trifling issue of terrorism, but you do make a good point. Perhaps the time diverted from junk-snap-sending will pay off . . .
 
Duder1no said:
holy contradictions batman, this guy is losing his mind
Click to expand...

What contradiction? What he said is just as easily applied to Christians, Jews, Muslims, or anyone "attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government". I do not see skin or religion singled out. Do you have a problem with that?
 
spidey07 said:
Sen. Paul was simply making the case for why profiling works and why it should be used.
Click to expand...

Still shouldn't be used.

If foreigners come in and try to make war against the US then we should deport them or lock them up, that simple.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Such tactics were recently used to nail two terrorists here in KY just yesterday. Smelled like terrorist, looked like terrorist, fit the profile to a tee and they got busted. Profiling WORKS.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean it should be used. Torture might work once in a while on criminals, doesn't make it right to use.


Little jihadis going to mosques that preach terror and war against the infidel SHOULD be investigated as well as any who support them.
Click to expand...

Watched, yes. Locked up and deported, no, unless they do something illegal.
 
Jaskalas said:
What contradiction? What he said is just as easily applied to Christians, Jews, Muslims, or anyone "attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government". I do not see skin or religion singled out. Do you have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

Waaa! But sedition is my constitutional right! Waaaa!
 
Jaskalas said:
What contradiction? What he said is just as easily applied to Christians, Jews, Muslims, or anyone "attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government". I do not see skin or religion singled out. Do you have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

first he says that he is not for profiling but then goes and justifies it

if that is not a contradiction of terms then i don't know what is
 
Duder1no said:
first he says that he is not for profiling but then goes and justifies it

if that is not a contradiction of terms then i don't know what is
Click to expand...

Based on the color of their skin or religion.
I mean, if someone is openly plotting the overthrow or our government, or is involved with people that do that, I would think that it would probably be a good idea to check them out at the airport as opposed to some random guy, but thats just me.
 
Rand Paul 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.
Click to expand...

So attending certain speeches should result in deportation/imprisonment? That's what's offensive about his comment... to me, anyway.

Either it's poorly worded or he truly feels that way... neither of which is acceptable.
 
Last edited:
I think people are still struggling, ten years later, to find a way to target Islamic terrorists.

Our failures which both Bush and Obama champion include such jewels as the Patriot Act ignoring the Bill of Rights, and the TSA openly molesting your families. In that context, whether Paul's attempt is accurate enough pales in comparison.

Republicans and Democrats have massively f'ed up anything that resembles a reasonable and proper response to Islamic terrorism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top