Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Ron Paul says police response more frightening than Boston Bombers

Former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has slammed US law enforcement for responding to the Boston Marathon bombing with “police state tactics.”

In a post on the website of libertarian activist Lew Rockwell, Mr. Paul said Monday that the governmental reaction to the tragic explosions was worse than the attack itself. The forced lockdown of much of the Boston area, police riding armored vehicles through the streets, and door-to-door searches without warrants were all reminiscent of a military coup or martial law, Paul added.

“The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city,” according to Paul.

Furthermore, this response did not result in the capture of suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Paul charged. He was discovered hiding in a boat by a private citizen, who called police.

“And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police,” Paul wrote on Lew Rockwell’s site.

by Anonymousreply 11505/27/2013

Can understand where he is coming from on this and why wasn't it ever mentioned that in their big lockdown none of the cops looked inside that boat

by Anonymousreply 104/30/2013

He is absolutely right. Both the Vice and President said Boston exhibited no fear. The only thing they did NOT do is put Boston under a big globe. The Israelis would have had business as usual in four hours. After all we are USA USA

by Anonymousreply 204/30/2013

[quote]the governmental reaction to the tragic explosions was worse than the attack itself.

WTF!?!?! Three people died and nearly 300 were injured in the bombing. And he thinks driving an armored vehicle down a street is WORSE than people dieing? Fuck that old coot.

by Anonymousreply 304/30/2013

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

by Anonymousreply 404/30/2013

Paul is right about the overreaction. It was interesting to watch the law enforcement media commentators 'gently' reporting that it was an overreaction as it occurred and to hear the back-pedaling post-capture.

An KSG prof gave a lecture last week about the aerial photos of the boat pre-capture. It was obvious the cover was torn (although blood wasn't visible from the air). He said, if not for the civilians, the police would not have caught the 19 y.o. alive. Is it Monday morning quarterbacking? Sure. But he's right.

by Anonymousreply 504/30/2013

A bunch of fucking pussies! And no, I am not a freeper. I'm actually quite left. The two or three days immediately following the bombing, the police conducted their investigations as you would expect. But when on Thursday night/ early Friday morning the suspects started killing cops, hijacking cars and lobbing bombs and grenades - and with one of them still on the loose - then, yes, a lockdown and a police state was justified and warranted and in keeping with the mission of protecting the the citizenry. To claim that our government was displaying fascistic behavior, with the underlying assumption that that is what men in power love to do, is complete and utter bullshit. Inconvenienced for a day. Jesus fucking Christ.

by Anonymousreply 604/30/2013

It wasn't a mandatory lockdown. Nobody went to jail because they opened their bodega during lockdown. Hysterical reaction from Senator Paul, viscerally affected by video of police teams going door to door (which failed, by the way, to find the culprit even though there was a blood trail and they had dogs). The whole "overwhelming force" concept applied to overweight American law enforcement is kind of a joke.

by Anonymousreply 704/30/2013

Are the Pauls seriously retahded, or what?

by Anonymousreply 804/30/2013

I am not sure that the police response was over the top, but I am sort of troubled that the Boston Police seem to have enough armored personnel carriers and heavy weapons to invade Canada.

And whatever the Boston police seemed to lack (an aircraft carrier?), the State Patrol and/or The Feds seemed to have in quantity.

I assume that if Boston has that stuff, every big city has them, and that duplication seems to be a fantastic waste of money.

by Anonymousreply 904/30/2013

Every city will want them if they don't already have them. My little town just put up a "police tower" to surveil the town square. It's creepy as fuck. No wonder the gun dorks want to hang on so furiously to their weapons.

by Anonymousreply 1004/30/2013

Ron Paul is right. I was there (live in the area) and it was like watching an elephant being brought in to swat a fly.

by Anonymousreply 1104/30/2013

He's wrong

by Anonymousreply 1204/30/2013

The suspect wouldn't have been hiding in the boat to be found by the private citizen if the world wasn't closing in on him as it was. Paul's conclusion is wrong, but he makes a valid point.

by Anonymousreply 1304/30/2013

Too bad. They did what they thought was correct to prevent any more killings and maimings. The popo does not have a crystal ball that's why after 9/11 we have to work together and stay alert. Jesus. I'd like to see that asshole do anything effectively.

by Anonymousreply 1404/30/2013

In my opinion, the fact that every major city in the US now sports all this equipment means that the government fully expects more terrorist attacks on our own soil.

by Anonymousreply 1504/30/2013

I reserve the right to be skeptical about anything our government stenographers (I mean journalists) report in the news.

by Anonymousreply 1604/30/2013

Such idiotic people here. You realize of course if the same shit happened where they live there would be no problem if any means necessary were used.

Nothing like armchair sociologists to tell us what we should think.

Ron Paul is a nut job. He's racist and stupid. Who the fuck cares what he thinks except for people as dumb as him?

by Anonymousreply 1704/30/2013

I agree with you, R16.

There is no reason to trust that TV newscaster and print journalists are telling the public the truth about anything. They are Military/Corporate whores, every last one of them.

by Anonymousreply 1804/30/2013

It's the Illumanati!

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Beware America. There is a gay plot to take over America. The plan is to have our cities under the control of the police (who are homos)and then the country will be so gay.


by Anonymousreply 1904/30/2013

[quote] Can understand where he is coming from on this and why wasn't it ever mentioned that in their big lockdown none of the cops looked inside that boat

The owner of the boat said the police did check the boat. Later on he went out in his yard and noticed the blood

by Anonymousreply 2004/30/2013

R17, I DO LIVE WHERE THIS HAPPENED and agree with Ron Paul.

by Anonymousreply 2104/30/2013

And that is why he was never and will never be President. Libertarians are a bunch of kooks who fear the gov't more than than a terrorist so willing to place a bomb near an 8y/o boy and dismembering 150 other people.

Paul must have missed the part where the older brother could have caused much more damaged the night he died had the lid of pressure cooker not faltered.

At that time, the police just did not know what kind of weaponry or bombs the younger brother had with him. If he was willing to run over his own brother to get away, who knows what he was capable of.

The police did such a great job the towns people gave them a cheering ovation as they drove out of the city.

by Anonymousreply 2204/30/2013

[R9] After 9/11 and creation of the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security, cities all over the country were given money to that type of equipment. If I recall correctly, the 100 largest cities in the U.S. were specifically told they needed all of it to prepare for a future attack. [R15] is correct. Although some of the money went to podunk town in BFE that used it to buy shit like helicopters.

by Anonymousreply 2304/30/2013 had the interview with the boat owner. There was no blood on the outside nor was there a torn cover.

He went out for a smoke and noticed two paint rollers, which he used to keep the bungee cords (which secured the boat tarp) from scraping the boat, on the ground.

So he got a step ladder and was rearranging the tarp when he noticed blood on the interior of the boat. He moved to see another pool of blood on the other side of the motor block so he moved again and saw D crouching behind the motor block. D was probably passed out or asleep because he didn't move. He went back in and called the cops. The kid was very well hidden. If the boat owner wasn't so obsessive about the boat he most likely would have found a dead body a week or two later.

by Anonymousreply 2404/30/2013

[quote]Mr. Paul said Monday that the governmental reaction to the tragic explosions was worse than the attack itself.

This is the sort of ridiculous hyperbole Libertarians imagine passes for thought.

How many 8 year old boys died due to the government's reaction to the bombing? How many people lost their legs?

Libertarians are political Marys.

by Anonymousreply 2504/30/2013

[quote], I am not a freeper. I'm actually quite left. The two or three days immediately following the bombing, the police conducted their investigations as you would expect. . . a lockdown and a police state was justified and warranted and in keeping with the mission of protecting the the citizenry.

LOL! You mean left like Stalin.

by Anonymousreply 2605/01/2013

R1, the police created a zone which would be searched house to house.

The boat was one block outside of the created zone so neither the boat nor that house were searched.

by Anonymousreply 2705/01/2013

While Ron Paul has a valid point, he loses it with his inane reasoning. The man, and son are dangerous people.

by Anonymousreply 2805/01/2013

R27: No, another lie exposed:

by Anonymousreply 2905/01/2013

Lawrence O'Donnell tore Paul's statement apart piece by piece last night. Every word of it, he said, is a lie. Then he proved it!

by Anonymousreply 3005/01/2013

fucking liars.

by Anonymousreply 3105/01/2013

r6 is right and i love lawrence odonnell

by Anonymousreply 3205/01/2013

He's an ass.

by Anonymousreply 3305/01/2013

It's "damned if you do/don't" situation for the government.

Typical of Libertarians. They just want to talk shit about something. Always bitching, never presenting a constructive alternative.

by Anonymousreply 3405/01/2013

I agree, R25 and R35.

by Anonymousreply 3505/01/2013

We literally had a police state where cops were searching homes without warrants that week in Boston. False flag incidents like this will continue to happen on a regular basis so that the powers that be can slowly bring martial law into fruition. 9/11 was also a false flag operation. The degradation of our civil liberties for the sake of 'security' is something that's been going on since that dreadful day.

by Anonymousreply 3605/01/2013

I would have more respect for Libertarians and their professed commitment to individual freedoms if they weren't so obsessed with government control over women's pussies.

by Anonymousreply 3705/01/2013

false flag, in this case?


by Anonymousreply 3805/01/2013

It's weird to see Americans defending totalitarian, Anti-American activity by their own government. They could have had a judge on site signing warrants. Something. "They" are clearly attempting to normalize this kind of home invasion, search and seizure method. You can follow rules while being prompt and thorough. They just choose not to. Most Americans are too narc'd out and bewitched by media to think independently, so they overlook this slow boil of our civil liberties.

by Anonymousreply 3905/01/2013

R22: cops knew jahar was unarmed. He was without a gun during the carjacking and shoot out. They knew he had no weapons on him because he had no time to grab them out of the trunk. Also, it is unlikely that the guy and his leg wound were going to hop on Amtrak.

With your logic, every city should be locked down every day, because there is always some nut with a gun running around.

by Anonymousreply 4005/01/2013

How do you know the police "knew" he wasn't armed? They didn't know what these guys had in their weaponry. If you're capable of placing a bomb next to a child and blowing people to bits to get your point across, you're capable of more massacre -- especially of those in blue.

These guys weren't just armed with guns. They had explosives. They aren't your average gunman with rage issues. they had the kind of explosives that could be found in war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq.

by Anonymousreply 4105/01/2013

Actual footage of cops hauling citizens out of their homes at gunpoint; no warrant needed.

by Anonymousreply 4205/01/2013

R42: the cops had the carjack victims statement and the footage from the shoot out sent to them that night.

by Anonymousreply 4305/01/2013

[quote]Actual footage of cops hauling citizens out of their homes at gunpoint; no warrant needed.

And you think this is something new? If you are black, brown or poor, this is business as usual for you.

by Anonymousreply 4405/01/2013

[quote] They could have had a judge on site signing warrants. Something.

Absolutely. They have judges on stand by and they can get a warrant in seconds by phone to authorize warrants if they have the requisite probable cause.

Whether they knew or did not know a suspect was armed does not get you the required probable cause to enter a home or frisk persons without probable cause of a link to the suspect as to THAT person to be frisked or THAT house to be entered and searched.

Isn't this taught in high school. People need to understand their rights. I am surprised and disappointed that a discussion site for those who face routinely discrimination is populated by so many unaware of their rights.

by Anonymousreply 4505/01/2013

The DL has really been dumbed down about civil rights in recent years. This is quite sad.

by Anonymousreply 4605/01/2013

The police would claim they had the owners' consent for all those searches. You won't know otherwise until somebody files a suit.

by Anonymousreply 4705/01/2013

Here's the deal. Of course he's right, and everyone knows it, down deep. You just don't have to say it! We got hurt, very badly, and needed to get crazy for a bit. It happens.

by Anonymousreply 4805/01/2013

Police have been doing this shit to blacks, poor people, even gay people since like, forever. But once it happens in a lily white neighborhood, suddenly old coots like Paul and the assholes who suck his dick are all pitching a fit.

by Anonymousreply 4905/01/2013

R49=soulless evil

by Anonymousreply 5005/01/2013

[quote] Of course he's right, and everyone knows it, down deep.

No. People who know the truth recognize his op-ed is riddled with lies.

by Anonymousreply 5105/01/2013

I guess he has Asperger's; he didn't think how his comments would sound to the victims and their families.

by Anonymousreply 5205/01/2013

It makes me sick when soi disant liberals cannot see that Dr Paul is 100% right on this issue.

by Anonymousreply 5305/01/2013

The boat was within the search zone.

People want to believe the cops tell the truth.

by Anonymousreply 5405/01/2013

R54 There was no forced lock down as he claimed. There were not tanks on the streets as he claimed. Homes were not searched without permission from the residents. The man sold you a pound of baloney and you're eating it up like its filet mignon. How does it feel to be played as as a chump?

by Anonymousreply 5505/01/2013

Dammit, I hate to agree with Ron Paul but he's right.

People defend the police by saying they acted this way because they didn't know if they were facing another 9/11. Well, you can make that argument for just about any crime.

It's not a good thing when police departments get into the business of crime-prediction. It's a little too much like "Minority Report" to me.

But more Americans than ever are perfectly fine with forfeiting their Constitutional rights. This time, it may not matter. Next time it might not matter. One day, it will matter.

by Anonymousreply 5605/01/2013

[quote]But more Americans than ever are perfectly fine with forfeiting their Constitutional rights

What Constitutional rights were forfeited?

by Anonymousreply 5705/01/2013

R18, I'm a journalist. I'm not a military/corporate whore. I want to report the truth and inform the public. The public, on the other hand, doesn't really care until shit like the Boston bombing happens. Journalists need to be supported all the time in order for us to provide an effective, helpful service. But, no. The public wants its cat videos and celebrity sightings. Real journalism is dying, as a result.

by Anonymousreply 5805/01/2013

[quote]Real journalism is dying, as a result.

With people like you working in it, I can see why.

by Anonymousreply 5905/01/2013


by Anonymousreply 6005/01/2013

No,no tanks here!

by Anonymousreply 6105/01/2013

Nothing to see here

by Anonymousreply 6205/01/2013

Oh, a guy in a tank pointing a gun

by Anonymousreply 6305/01/2013

R62 You dont know what a tank looks like, do you?

by Anonymousreply 6405/01/2013

R60, you're so insightful! You added a lot to the discussion with your baseless insult. Go on now, go back to your LOL cats and leave the conversation to the adults.

by Anonymousreply 6505/01/2013

R64 you clearly don't know what a tank is. Those are not tanks. But please keep posting. It's amusing and highly entertaining.

by Anonymousreply 6605/01/2013

Shorter version of R66. I know I was asked to back up the claim I made earlier. But I cant because that was a lie. So instead I will call people names.

by Anonymousreply 6705/01/2013

Well, they might not be tanks, but they sure are more than Andy and Barney ever had.

Why did Boston Cops need desert camouflage outfits to search door to door in Watertown? Regular uniforms not scary enough?

by Anonymousreply 6805/01/2013

R66 a real journalist provides evidence for what they report and are more than happy to clarify. You have refused to do so. A real journalist would recognize the lies Paul told. You instead repeat the lies as facts.

Conclusion: you're not a journalist.

by Anonymousreply 6905/01/2013

R69 So now you need to backtrack on your claim there were tanks there and instead focus on what they were wearing? LOl keep spinning old man, those false teeth will fly right out of your head.

by Anonymousreply 7005/01/2013

If there were more than those two people or at that time 1 person. If they started killing more people, everyone would be bitching and moaning that the government didn't protect them. This was more than the Boston police. They had FBI, national guard, homeland security and other federal agencies plus many local police forces involved in the search.

by Anonymousreply 7105/01/2013

Wtf are you talking about, r68? What was I asked to back up? You clearly have me confused with another poster. Also, you're an idiot if you don't think what the Boston police did was a violation of the 4th Amendment. Also, you motherfucking shit stain, I didn't call anyone a name until JUST NOW.

You're a bully asshole.

And when I said people are fine with forfeiting their Constitutional rights, I meant people like you who are cheerleaders for the police. You are perfectly ok with them undertaking any kind of action as long as it's done in the name of your definition of crime.

Tell us about yourself, r68. Where do you live and what do you do for a living? Are you unemployed?

by Anonymousreply 7205/01/2013

Jesus. Never mind, r68. I just realized you're the poster who clutched his pearls over people "dieing" in your post at R3.

Oh, dear. You're a mess. A real mess.

by Anonymousreply 7305/01/2013

R73 See R58. And and no time did do any cheerleading for the police. All I have been doing is pointing out the lies you are so happy to accept as fact. Your reading comprehension skills are not what one would expect from a so called journalist.

by Anonymousreply 7405/01/2013

There were soldiers and tanks in the streets of Montreal when there were kidnappings and bombings

by Anonymousreply 7505/01/2013

R73 If being upset over innocent people, children, being killed is nothing more than pearl clutching, then you are indeed a very sad person.

by Anonymousreply 7605/01/2013

Shorter version of R74: "I REFUSE to back up my claims. No way, no how."

by Anonymousreply 7705/01/2013

R75, when I said people were fine forfeiting their Constitutional rights, I meant it in a general way. That people are okay with the casual erosion of their rights on a daily basis. And again, as it pertains to what happened in Boston, many people seem to be okay with the violation of their 4th Amendment rights. HOW MANY MORE TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO ASK ME FOR SPECIFIC EXAMPLES? There are a lot of really smart posts in this thread. Read R40. Look at the fucking photographs of cops dragging innocent citizens out of their houses without warrants for more examples.

You keep confronting people in this thread who post opinions that oppose your own. You claim that you are pointing out Ron Paul's lies to them but I have yet to see one single post from you in which you detail those lies and explain why they are lies.

Instead of mindlessly attacking people, calling them names and insulting them, why don't you have a real discussion? It's easier to bring people to your way of thinking if you are reasonable and intelligent. As it is, you're acting like a troll.

by Anonymousreply 7805/01/2013

{quote]You claim that you are pointing out Ron Paul's lies to them but I have yet to see one single post from you in which you detail those lies and explain why they are lies.

See R56.

There is no way I will ever believe you are a journalist. You are far too lazy and need to be hand fed every bit of information instead of seeking it out for yourself. That, or you are so used to lying you don't even realize when you're doing so.

by Anonymousreply 7905/01/2013

I would love for Paul to read this thread and see who his supporters are: people who don't know what a tank looks like, a "journalist" who can't be bothered to read material or answer questions. Then again, I'm pretty sure he knows his supporters are suckers who will buy any crazy shit he says.

by Anonymousreply 8005/01/2013

The police wrinkled my crinolines! Where does the Constitution allow that? Nowhere!

by Anonymousreply 8105/01/2013

Again, just saying "this is wrong and that is wrong" is not enough. Where is your evidence of what you claim at R56?

And honey, R80, you need to check your reading comprehension. In the OP, Ron Paul is quoted as saying there were armored vehicles on the streets. Where did he say there were tanks? He didn't. You've been braying about a point that you had wrong.

I think you're very emotional about this issue. You are also blindly narcissistic and seem to think that insulting me hides your shortcomings. It doesn't.

Also, it's "dying" not "dieing." How old are you? And what do you do for a living?

by Anonymousreply 8205/01/2013

Jesus Fucking Christ R83 You are NO JOURNALIST! Here is the Op-ed. Despite defending it, you clearly have not bothered to read it. Take special note to the second sentience.

by Anonymousreply 8305/01/2013

R83 you really are clueless. You don't even know what you are defending at this point. How can you claim Paul was right when you never even bothered to read what he wrote?

by Anonymousreply 8405/01/2013

And you're a damned idiot, R84. I said the OP does not refer to tanks. The OP refers to ARMORED VEHICLES. Once again, your reading comprehension fails you. Your link goes to a dead page. And you can shout all you want, you ugly troll, but I still want answers to my questions. How old are you and what do you do for a living? And where is the proof to support all the assertions you've made in this thread?

Also, it's spelled "sentence" not "sentience."

You really get upset when people don't hold your views. Your indignation does not change the fact that the Boston PD rolled down city streets in military-style, armored vehicles. They locked down a city as though it was under martial law and only the ACLU is upset about it. Your pearl-clutching does not change the fact that cops forced citizens from their homes without warrants, thus violating the 4th Amendment. The cops stripped naked an innocent man on the streets of Boston. The potential threat of violence is rarely, if ever, excuse enough to suspend people's civil rights.

Read the post at R40 and internalize those points, R84. Your hatred of one man, Ron Paul, is blinding you. I've not been defending Ron Paul. I've been defending myself. I just happen to agree with Ron Paul's take on the Boston situation.

You will, I'm sure, continue to hurl insults at me but that will not change the fact that I am right about this and you are wrong. This discussion is OVER.

by Anonymousreply 8505/01/2013

R86 link worked fine for me. Why do you lie?

by Anonymousreply 8605/01/2013

R86 At no point did I comment on OP's comment. I have only been addressing what Paul wrote. Reading comprehension fail....again

And you are lying, again, about the dead link. Its not dead, you read it and you see quite clearly that Paul did say there tanks in the street. There were none.

And no, they didn't lock down the city. They asked everyone to stay indoors. It was not a forced lock-down as Paul, and you, claim. Just watch the coverage from that night. People were out and about, trying to see what was going on. Business were open, all contrary to what you and Paul are claiming.

This discussion is over? Of course it is. You have been exposed as what you are. A liar and a phoney and a coward too scared to answer the questions asked of you or back up what you are saying with actual facts.

by Anonymousreply 8705/01/2013

The link is dead for me too, r88

by Anonymousreply 8805/01/2013

Link works fine for me.

by Anonymousreply 8905/01/2013

R88, I've been following this thread with great interest. i agree with r59. You've been confrontational and making blanket statements while demanding others to provide you with documentation and proof, etc. You've been a little more than mean and dismissive. You are more interested in being right than in having a dialogue about the issue.

And r59, shame on you for letting this kid get under your skin. You don't have to address each and every attack raised by a poster. Some people are just trolling, ya know?

by Anonymousreply 9005/01/2013


The link works. The one below may work better.

And yes, the scumbag racist Ron Paul did use the word "tanks."

by Anonymousreply 9105/01/2013

Sorry R91, I just figured when people make claims they would be more than happy to back up the claims with facts. Of course, when they have no facts to back it up.... well, thats not my fault. And you are wrong, I would love to have a dialogue on the issue, but when others are not even familiar with what the issue is (what Paul actually wrote) its kind of difficult.

by Anonymousreply 9205/01/2013

Holy shit r88 is a piece of work! I think r59 made some great points and was alot nicer to you than I would be.

by Anonymousreply 9305/01/2013

R94 what great point did he make? Was it the one where he said Paul is right, but then it turns out he doesnt even know what Paul said?

by Anonymousreply 9405/01/2013

R94 great points? Like how he said Paul never said there were tanks in the streets, and then when confronted with the evidence he says the link doesn't work? Yea, that's an awesome point.

by Anonymousreply 9505/01/2013

I just re-read this thread, r93. R59 made a post saying he was a journalist and wished that people cared about journalism outside of major events, like the Boston bombing. And after that, you started attacking him. I can't tell what r59 did wrong.

R59 please, let's get back on track.

by Anonymousreply 9605/01/2013

Wait a second, r88, how old are you and what kind of work do you do? Why haven't you answered those questions?

by Anonymousreply 9705/01/2013

Yes, let's get back on track. Like how nearly everything Paul wrote was a lie.

by Anonymousreply 9805/01/2013

Bullshit, r99. I don't like Ron Paul but he speaks the truth regarding this situation. What the hell is wrong with you? Typical bullshit fake liberal attitude, just because Ron Paul said it doesn't make it wrong.

Police marched in the streets of Boston while they locked down some Boston neighborhoods. That shit is FACT. You're too ignorant to see that.

by Anonymousreply 9905/01/2013

R100 there was no forced lock down. That is a fact. People were asked to stay inside. As seen that night by the crowds in the street, no one was forced. If you have evidence people were forced to stay in, please share it with us.

by Anonymousreply 10005/01/2013

The fact that you people validate Ron Paul is amazing.

*Two terrorists murdered people. If you were the parents of that 8 year old I'm sure you would be screaming about a police state.

*One terrorist is dead.

*One terrorist has been captured.

Good. 3 more possible accessories in a crime have been arrested. Good.

By the way, you realize that what the older brother believed in would mean that gay people should be killed since...

Why bother trying to reason with idiots? One must never throw pearls before swine.

by Anonymousreply 10105/01/2013

R102 but getting all worked up over imaginary injustices is so much fun! And when you throw a few lies in the mix, its even better. Besides, this may be the perfect place for me to find a buyer for that bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling.

by Anonymousreply 10205/01/2013

Oh, god. Here we go again. You're a fucking nut, r101/r93. People were told to shelter in place. The implication was that people HAD to stay indoors, or else. The order no doubt had a chilling effect on people and altered their behavior. The fact that much of the long term effects of this situation are lost on you is disappointing. You are more caught up in being right than anything else. That makes you very boring. No wonder you're still single.

by Anonymousreply 10305/01/2013

R104 so I take it you don't have any evidence people were forced to stay inside, right. And yea, with all those people out in the streets rubber-necking, that's some real chilling effect. I've given you an opportunity to prove me wrong. You just need some facts to do it. I am more than happy to see what you offer.

by Anonymousreply 10405/01/2013

Conservatives use arguments such as those at R102 to further erode our civil rights. Some of you people make Nazis sound sane. I'm looking at you, r105, r102.

by Anonymousreply 10505/01/2013

R106 all I as doing is asking for evidence to back up your claim. If you are correct, then it should be easy for you. I am more than happy to say you are correct, but it would be nice to have some facts first. So far the only people here defending Paul have not read what he actually wrote.

by Anonymousreply 10605/01/2013

So what if you're right, r107? What next? So Ron Paul said tanks instead of armored vehicles. What next? Are you just here to prove that Ron Paul is wrong? I haven't read a whole lot of posts that actually support Ron Paul. I have read stuff from people who are worried about the easy way that police grab power and how civilians don't seem bothered by it. They make valid points but I don't see you addressing any of that. You just want to be right about the word choices. What do you hope to get out of this discussion?

by Anonymousreply 10705/01/2013

As long as there's a recognized "authority," there will be people willing/eager to lick its anus and call out others as bad or wrong for not joining them.

by Anonymousreply 10805/01/2013

Watch this video-

It shows how the police terrorized innocent people, searched houses illegally and behaved like thugs.

When the Federal Reserve tanks the economy and people are starving, the fact that we allowed this type of martial law to go unchallenged will haunt us.

by Anonymousreply 10905/11/2013

R31 wrote-

[quote]Lawrence O'Donnell tore Paul's statement apart piece by piece last night. Every word of it, he said, is a lie. Then he proved it!

Watch the video at YouTube. They destroy every single one of O'Donnell's moronic commentary.

by Anonymousreply 11005/11/2013

R57 wrote-

[quote]Dammit, I hate to agree with Ron Paul but he's right.

[quote]People defend the police by saying they acted this way because they didn't know if they were facing another 9/11. Well, you can make that argument for just about any crime.

[quote]It's not a good thing when police departments get into the business of crime-prediction. It's a little too much like "Minority Report" to me.

[quote]But more Americans than ever are perfectly fine with forfeiting their Constitutional rights. This time, it may not matter. Next time it might not matter. One day, it will matter.

Do you think this stance was the popular stance, R57? You can see how vitriolic and hyperbolic the attacks on what Dr Paul said, and precious constitutional civil liberties be damned.

Maybe you will take a few hours to read some of what Dr Paul stands for, and why he takes the unpopular stances and makes these kind of incendiary comments. He was one of the few congresscritters to oppose the PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Iraq, the drug war, the attacks on the internet (SOPA/PIPA), the trillion dollar bailouts of big banks---all of which come from a simple understanding of the right to own your body, the freedom to contract, and the damnation of the initiation violence.

Even though he VERY pro-life, he has stated many times that it isn't the right of the president or Feds to make abortion illegal, and has supported the rights of the states to make gay marriage legal.

The only reason people hate him here is because they are too hypnotized by the media to think independently.

by Anonymousreply 11105/11/2013

Considering how the case is being handled, and how the government is stonewalling and prevaricating about what actually happened, I think this thread is relevant.

by Anonymousreply 11205/17/2013

It's interesting and illuminating to read the responses from a few weeks ago, especially in light of how many of them have turned out to be wrong- no shootout, no robbery, etc.

by Anonymousreply 11305/17/2013

No shit, R114

by Anonymousreply 11405/27/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!