Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Congressman Ron Paul defends Wikileaks and Julian Assange with a brilliant speech on the house floor   (youtube.com ) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

3414 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2010 at 1:55 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



151 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-10 01:24:04 PM  

In before "B-b-but he's crazy!"

RON PAUL!

 
2010-12-10 01:36:24 PM  
We need more congresspeople like this.
 
2010-12-10 01:36:51 PM  
Don't always agree with him, but you have to respect his conviction.
 
2010-12-10 01:37:12 PM  
He's so dreamy.

/RON PAUL
 
2010-12-10 01:46:43 PM  

Code_Archeologist: Don't always agree with him, but you have to respect his conviction.


And in this case at least, I think he's right. Or at least on the right track.
 
2010-12-10 01:53:43 PM  
RON PAUL!!

I'll vote for him.
 
2010-12-10 01:58:52 PM  
I wonder if Rand has to pretend dad doesn't exist now that he's a mainstream Republican.
 
2010-12-10 01:59:30 PM  
Blind squirrel, nut, etc.

Ron Paul has a very weird ideology. Want an abortion? Tough, the government will make you stay pregnant, slut. But he's a staunch supporter of other civil rights. Then he's a goldbug, which is flatly idiotic, but at least has the conviction to demand oversight of the Fed. Conversely, oversight of the banks is verboten.
 
2010-12-10 02:00:30 PM  
Awesome. This is what a true libertarian looks like. Shame his son is a crazy Teabagger.
 
2010-12-10 02:01:04 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Want an abortion? Tough, the government will make you stay pregnant, slut.


My impression is that he does not believe abortion should be a federal issue, not that abortion should be made federally illegal.

At least, that's how I justified it to myself when I campaigned for him.

/still think he was the best of all the options in 2008
 
2010-12-10 02:01:32 PM  
Can't watch the YouTubes here at work. Somebody mind giving a quick summary?
 
2010-12-10 02:02:41 PM  
Ron Paul is often a voice of reason about civil liberty.

If only he was also sane about public protections and economics, too. But one out of three is a start, I suppose, and better than most Republicans.
 
2010-12-10 02:03:57 PM  

YixilTesiphon: My impression is that he does not believe abortion should be a federal issue, not that abortion should be made federally illegal.


He does believe it should be a state issue, but he personally is against it. The man is an OBGYN; it should not be a surprising stance for him.

One can be a libertarian and anti-abortion. It comes down to the rights of the child vs the rights of the mother. The issue is not as black and white as both sides make it out to be, and I wish they'd stop pretending like it is.
 
2010-12-10 02:04:54 PM  

monoski: Can't watch the YouTubes here at work. Somebody mind giving a quick summary?


Basically, we're making Assange into the bad guy because we don't to have the uncomfortable conversation about what was IN the wikileaks. Also, he's not an American, he didn't steal anything, and several other organizations have printed this material.

Shine on, you crazy diamond. Shine on.
 
2010-12-10 02:06:18 PM  

Vanetia: He does believe it should be a state issue, but he personally is against it. The man is an OBGYN; it should not be a surprising stance for him.


Well...yes. Yes it is. Most OBGYNs know that sometimes, things go horrible wrong, and a baby who is very much wanted can become non viable.

You'd think and OBGYN would also know that sometimes a baby is the worst thing that could happen to someone.
 
2010-12-10 02:06:28 PM  
I think it was a Fark rule that any time RON PAUL was mentioned, it had to be in all caps.

/RON PAUL
 
2010-12-10 02:07:33 PM  
Hater are gonna hate, but he is about as good as they come in the political arena today.
 
2010-12-10 02:08:18 PM  
I'd vote for RON PAUL as I'm sure he'd kick ass and take names the entire time he was President.
 
2010-12-10 02:09:10 PM  

what_now: Vanetia: He does believe it should be a state issue, but he personally is against it. The man is an OBGYN; it should not be a surprising stance for him.

Well...yes. Yes it is. Most OBGYNs know that sometimes, things go horrible wrong, and a baby who is very much wanted can become non viable.

You'd think and OBGYN would also know that sometimes a baby is the worst thing that could happen to someone.


I really admire Ron Paul (his son not so much), But the abortion issue is kind of a problem for the Libertarians. Regardless, he is right on this one.
 
2010-12-10 02:13:50 PM  
He's dead wrong on economics, but as a voice for civil liberties he's the best politician we have around.

And seriously, can we have a RON PAUL thread without talking about farking abortion for once. He's not running for president people.
 
2010-12-10 02:15:11 PM  
He's still batchit crazy:

RON PAUL has authored legislation saying that life begins at conception, to prevent federal money from being spent on family planning (that would include contraception), and has tried to amend the Constitution to "guarantee the right to life."

RON PAUL has tried to repeal the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to abolish the minimum wage, and to eviscerate Social Security.

RON PAUL wants guns in schools.

RON PAUL has tried to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act to guarantee employees of federal contractors the prevailing wage and wants to make it easier to decertify a union.

RON PAUL wants to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship.

RON PAUL wants to dismantle the Federal Reserve and prepare for a return to the Gold Standard, which would destroy the economy.
 
2010-12-10 02:17:49 PM  

ORLY TITS: He's dead wrong on economics, but as a voice for civil liberties he's the best politician we have around.


THIS! People would do well to listen to Ron Paul, even if they don't entirely agree. It's a shame that there aren't more Congressman like him. He's the type of guy who could actually use logic and reason to make decisions, unlike nearly all of his colleagues.
 
2010-12-10 02:21:58 PM  

Vanetia: He does believe it should be a state issue, but he personally is against it. The man is an OBGYN; it should not be a surprising stance for him.

One can be a libertarian and anti-abortion. It comes down to the rights of the child vs the rights of the mother. The issue is not as black and white as both sides make it out to be, and I wish they'd stop pretending like it is.


He not only voted for, but SPONSORED the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007. H.R. 2597, 2007-06-06, originally H.R. 776, 2005-02-10. For the purposes of statutory construction over the jurisdictional limitation imposed, declares that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

How is a state supposed to legalize abortion given the above sentence?
 
2010-12-10 02:22:02 PM  

Vanetia: It comes down to the rights of the child vs the rights of the mother


The mother, in this case, is the property owner. And the fetus is the unwelcome guest. Abortion, then, is simply an eviction; a property owner exercising their control over their own property. To oppose access to abortion is to force the worst kind of welfare state where unwelcome tenants can stay at their leisure and can only be evicted at great personal expense to the property owner.

ColTomParker: He's still batchit crazy


He is. He's right on some things and painfully wrong on most everything else.
 
2010-12-10 02:22:37 PM  

Tickle Mittens: Honestly, an educated person believing what he does should be rewarded with leather restraints and a thorizine drip, not given primary legislative authority over the aorta of Known Universe's economy.


What he believes:

WikiLeaks release of classified information has generated a lot of attention in the past few weeks. The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news. Despite what is claimed, the information that has been so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing our grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.

There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and that this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government. This emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did. It has been charged by experts that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason and execution, or even assassination.

But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government should prosecute an Australian citizen for treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.

The New York Times, as a results of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for publishing the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which precipitated a sad and tragic episode in our history.

Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information which challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and the supporters of these unnecessary wars. For are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.

Questions to consider:

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.' I yield back the balance of my time.
 
2010-12-10 02:23:10 PM  

ColTomParker: He's still batchit crazy:


I'm no fan of the man, but just because he may be wrong about those things doesn't mean he's wrong about this thing.
 
2010-12-10 02:23:41 PM  

ColTomParker: He's still batchit crazy:


Most of those ideas are not batshiat crazy. They're just ideas I don't really like.
 
2010-12-10 02:24:21 PM  

t3knomanser: He is. He's right on some things and painfully wrong on most everything else.


Double this with a that on top and cream.

If he's right, it's more by accident than design.
 
2010-12-10 02:25:46 PM  
I like Ron Paul because even though I disagree with him on many things, I think he's a man of principle.
 
2010-12-10 02:25:48 PM  

t3knomanser: The mother, in this case, is the property owner. And the fetus is the unwelcome guest. Abortion, then, is simply an eviction; a property owner exercising their control over their own property. To oppose access to abortion is to force the worst kind of welfare state where unwelcome tenants can stay at their leisure and can only be evicted at great personal expense to the property owner.


Did you just advocate murder for tenants overstaying their welcome? Holy shiat, man. You're hardcore.
 
2010-12-10 02:27:58 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Blind squirrel, nut, etc.

Ron Paul has a very weird ideology. Want an abortion? Tough, the government will make you stay pregnant, slut. But he's a staunch supporter of other civil rights. Then he's a goldbug, which is flatly idiotic, but at least has the conviction to demand oversight of the Fed. Conversely, oversight of the banks is verboten.


Umm, it's not weird if you believe the unborn is a person. In fact, it's civil rights protection of the most vulnerable. It's very consistent.
 
2010-12-10 02:28:31 PM  

what_now: I like Ron Paul because even though I disagree with him on many things, I think he's a man of principle.


Men of principle don't go on the Alex Jones show and try to recruit truthers.
 
2010-12-10 02:28:37 PM  

what_now: I like Ron Paul because even though I disagree with him on many things, I think he's a man of principle.


Yeah, no doubt about that.
 
2010-12-10 02:28:41 PM  
And if the GOP asked him to vote for executing Assange, RON PAUL would shut up and color because he's a gargantuan pussy.
 
2010-12-10 02:29:47 PM  

ORLY TITS: He's dead wrong on economics, but as a voice for civil liberties he's the best politician we have around.


I can get behind that statement.
 
2010-12-10 02:30:48 PM  

Chimperror2: Umm, it's not weird if you believe the unborn is a person. In fact, it's civil rights protection of the most vulnerable. It's very consistent.


So which is it? Should it be up to the states, or banned because it's protection of the most vulnerable? If it's murdering the most vulnerable then it makes no sense to leave it up to the states as it's murder. If it's not murder then why is it a civil rights issue?
 
2010-12-10 02:31:42 PM  
He keeps the other congress critters on their toes...I'll give him that. Libertarians are wonderful in small doses...

/small doses...
 
2010-12-10 02:32:05 PM  

what_now: I like Ron Paul because even though I disagree with him on many things, I think he's a man of principle.


Men of principle don't accept donations from white-Supremacist organizations.
 
2010-12-10 02:32:54 PM  

sprawl15: And if the GOP asked him to vote for executing Assange, RON PAUL would shut up and color because he's a gargantuan pussy.


Do you have any examples to cite that drove you to this conclusion?
 
2010-12-10 02:33:24 PM  

bigdavediode: Men of principle don't go on the Alex Jones show and try to recruit truthers.


bigdavediode: Men of principle don't accept donations from white-Supremacist organizations.


I said I disagree with him. Even if he is a racist troofer (which, considering how he raised his son, wouldn't surprise me), at least he's not in the pocket of the GOP machine. I appreciated that.
 
2010-12-10 02:33:55 PM  

bigdavediode: Chimperror2: Umm, it's not weird if you believe the unborn is a person. In fact, it's civil rights protection of the most vulnerable. It's very consistent.

So which is it? Should it be up to the states, or banned because it's protection of the most vulnerable? If it's murdering the most vulnerable then it makes no sense to leave it up to the states as it's murder. If it's not murder then why is it a civil rights issue?


BINGO BANGO BONGO.

It's funny how a lot of people like saying abortion is murder but then if you pressure them to state that those committing the abortion and all parties involved should thus be punished as though it WAS murder, they start getting all wishy-washy.

/almost like the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality. It sounds nice to them until you point out how it really doesn't work.
 
2010-12-10 02:33:57 PM  

what_now: I like Ron Paul because even though I disagree with him on many things, I think he's a man of principle.


Men of principle don't vote against giving Rosa Parks a medal.
 
2010-12-10 02:35:01 PM  

what_now: I said I disagree with him. Even if he is a racist troofer (which, considering how he raised his son, wouldn't surprise me), at least he's not in the pocket of the GOP machine. I appreciated that.


That's the point, though, he's not a truther. He's a panderer and not a man of principle. He's right on this issue, and good for him for standing up to say what the rest of congress isn't, but he's still a panderer.
 
2010-12-10 02:35:16 PM  

Vanetia: sprawl15: And if the GOP asked him to vote for executing Assange, RON PAUL would shut up and color because he's a gargantuan pussy.

Do you have any examples to cite that drove you to this conclusion?


Name a single difficult vote that was decided by Ron Paul breaking from the party line.
 
2010-12-10 02:35:16 PM  

Vanetia: Did you just advocate murder for tenants overstaying their welcome? Holy shiat, man.


Abortion is not murder- it's eviction. The fact that the evicted tenant can't provide for itself is irrelevant. They had no inherent right to be supported.
 
2010-12-10 02:35:34 PM  

bigdavediode: So which is it? Should it be up to the states, or banned because it's protection of the most vulnerable? If it's murdering the most vulnerable then it makes no sense to leave it up to the states as it's murder. If it's not murder then why is it a civil rights issue?


So which is it? Did he write legislation in regards to this or not?

Stop arguing in circles. You're leaving marks on the floor.
 
2010-12-10 02:35:37 PM  
I like what he's saying, but overall I think he's kind of an ineffectual ideologue.
 
2010-12-10 02:36:03 PM  

Chimperror2: Umm, it's not weird if you believe the unborn is a person. In fact, it's civil rights protection of the most vulnerable. It's very consistent.


First off, define "person."

Fetuses are not considered persons by the law, nor should they be. Pregnant women, regardless of sluttiness and how much they're just begging for punishment, are persons. If they want rid of their parasites, good for them.
 
2010-12-10 02:37:09 PM  

Minus1Kelvin: It's funny how a lot of people like saying abortion is murder but then if you pressure them to state that those committing the abortion and all parties involved should thus be punished as though it WAS murder, they start getting all wishy-washy.


It is an awkward situation -- when black and white beliefs and redefined words start meaning that you really should prosecute young recently-pregnant women for homicide.
 
2010-12-10 02:37:53 PM  

bigdavediode: what_now: I like Ron Paul because even though I disagree with him on many things, I think he's a man of principle.

Men of principle don't vote against giving Rosa Parks a medal.


"No to a congressional gold medal for Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan and Rosa Parks. He says the medals are an unconstitutional use of taxpayer money and once suggested each House member instead contribute 100 bucks from his or her own pocket."
Link (new window)

At least he is consistant
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report