Ron Paul On Face The Nation

[CaneBrain 95]

Do you support the recent Israeli purge of 50,000 Negroes, expelling them from Israel?Don't get me wrong: I do support that. I support the Calabrians pogrom against the Negroes last year, I support Israel getting rid of them too... but I wonder how you would view it?

Like many non-religious American Jews, I support Israel in its never-ending fight with the Arabs but I view a lot of their social policy with mild/medium embarrassment. Kind of the same way I view social policy in Oklahoma. I'd give you something more specific but I can't find any news or commentary about this alleged expulsion because we control the media.Henry,like I said the second one is BS. I think you are really whitewashing the third one though. He's basically saying the victim of sexual harassment is also culpable and that's just false. I thought that was the worst of three by far. I think the AIDS one is going to come off the worst even though when you look at WHEN he wrote it there is mitigating context. The sexual harassment stuff just seems absurd to me. Being a job creator doesn't entitle you to harass people with no consequences. It's one thing to be a jerk like Steve Jobs it's another to sexually harass someone. Come on.

[AmScray 355]

I'd give you something more specific but I can't find any news or commentary about this alleged expulsion because we control the media.

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=248630

[CaneBrain 95]

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=248630

That's disappointing----they are way too obsessed with keeping a Jewish majority (a goal with little hope of succeeding long term anyway----Jews are not big breeders) and they just end up sounding like Southern Republicans talking about illegal Mexican immigration. At least, no Israeli politician is pushing two electric fences with a moat in between yet.On the other hand, this reflexive dismissal of migrant workers is pretty standard for most countries.

[AmScray 355]

At least, no Israeli politician is pushing two electric fences with a moat in between yet.

[CaneBrain 95]

No moat, no 2nd fence, no electricity. Amateur hour.

[AmScray 355]

But they have firing ports!Firing ports!If we would just install manned gun towers along the border every so often, we wouldn't need the fencing, barbed wire or alligator moats either.US Mexico Border: 1969 miles.Yards in a mile: 1760 Range of an average, trained shot with a Barrett .50 on a man sized target: Lets say 1000 yards. Airtight border, 3465 men up front with not a single inch of our border out of rifle range. Three shifts, 10395.Lets be generous and add mobile patrol/support squads of 6 men every 5 miles, that's 2363 more men. Three shifts, 7089 men. Add another couple thousand employees in support roles, bullshit 'makework' jobs for connected cousins and family members... We could put every square inch of our border within coverage of rifle range, 24/7/365, with this arrangement. The border patrol currently employs over 20,000.

[CaneBrain 95]

But they have firing ports!Firing ports!If we would just install manned gun towers along the border every 500 yards or so, we wouldn't need the fencing, barbed wire or alligator moats either.

ok, it is pretty awesome. I think we all know they have those firing ports for other reasons than defending the border against migrant workers though. Never know when Egypt, Lebanon or Syria is going to step out of line.

[hblask 1]

Henry,like I said the second one is BS. I think you are really whitewashing the third one though. He's basically saying the victim of sexual harassment is also culpable and that's just false. I thought that was the worst of three by far. I think the AIDS one is going to come off the worst even though when you look at WHEN he wrote it there is mitigating context. The sexual harassment stuff just seems absurd to me. Being a job creator doesn't entitle you to harass people with no consequences. It's one thing to be a jerk like Steve Jobs it's another to sexually harass someone. Come on.

He has never said nor implied anything like the bolded. If you got that from him, you may need to examine your own inner demons, because I've never even seen that hinted at in anything he has said or written.So you think being a job creators entitles others to tell you how to behave? Nice economic engine you got there.....

[FCP Bob 1,312]

He has never said nor implied anything like the bolded. If you got that from him, you may need to examine your own inner demons, because I've never even seen that hinted at in anything he has said or written.So you think being a job creators entitles others to tell you how to behave? Nice economic engine you got there.....

He said the bolded in his book.http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...tims/?hpt=hp_t1

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

[CaneBrain 95]

Lol it was in the article I linked to as bob pointed out. I don't have to examine my demons much to see how huge your blind spot is for Paul. He catered to the fringe for a lot of reasons and now it's haunting him.

[hblask 1]

You guys remind me of the necons in the 2008 debate who twisted his words to say that he was blaming America for the 9/11 attacks because he said that we have a role.This is the same thing: no, the victim of harassment is in no way responsible for harassment, but if you continue working for that person on the same terms, then you have implicitly accepted those terms.The notion that creating things for others obligates you to change your behavior to please those people that you just created things for is a bit appalling.

[CaneBrain 95]

As someone who agrees with Ron paul's 9/11 position wholeheartedly, I disagree. I don't agree with that premise at all. Employers can't harass their employees and not quitting does not equal implied consent. That's an opinion (and a misguided and legally specious opinion imo). Ron paul's view that our aggressive foreign policy has blowback is pretty provable as fact especially in the middle east.

[hblask 1]

As someone who agrees with Ron paul's 9/11 position wholeheartedly, I disagree. I don't agree with that premise at all. Employers can't harass their employees and not quitting does not equal implied consent. That's an opinion (and a misguided and legally specious opinion imo). Ron paul's view that our aggressive foreign policy has blowback is pretty provable as fact especially in the middle east.

Explain to me the moral principle by which a creator of something is bound to change their behavior to please the willing recipient of that creation.

[hblask 1]

Ron Paul and progressives

Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested.

[CaneBrain 95]

Explain to me the moral principle by which a creator of something is bound to change their behavior to please the willing recipient of that creation.

Harassment is bad.As for the article, I agree in part. I think it's good Ron Paul runs. For me voting is always about choosing the lesser of the two evils and that's still Obama.

[hblask 1]

Harassment is bad.

LOL. So everything that is bad must be outlawed? Are you sure you want to proceed on this line of reasoning?

[CaneBrain 95]

LOL. So everything that is bad must be outlawed? Are you sure you want to proceed on this line of reasoning?

Oh you thought that was a serious answer?I think I'm pretty consistent: behavior that directly impacts other humans should always be treated more harshly than behavior that does not. Peope who think that victims of harassment are giving implied consent if they don't quit don't understand the concept of duress. They're also idealogues who think that requiring that employers comport themselves within the established norms of society by not harassing people is too much to ask.It's not like it's going to be ok for someone to harass non employees. You can be sued for harassing a random person; you and Ron Paul understand that, right? I think it's a really ****ing stupid argument tbh.

[hblask 1]

Oh you thought that was a serious answer?I think I'm pretty consistent: behavior that directly impacts other humans should always be treated more harshly than behavior that does not. Peope who think that victims of harassment are giving implied consent if they don't quit don't understand the concept of duress. They're also idealogues who think that requiring that employers comport themselves within the established norms of society by not harassing people is too much to ask.It's not like it's going to be ok for someone to harass non employees. You can be sued for harassing a random person; you and Ron Paul understand that, right? I think it's a really ****ing stupid argument tbh.

They are not giving implied consent to harassment by continuing to work there; they are giving explicit consent to the terms of employment. If the employee quits and the employer follows them home, then the ex-employee can get a restraining order."Comport themselves within the established norms of society" is just code words for forcing the views of the politically powerful onto the politically powerless. The act of creation should not *remove* any rights that exist without that act of creation.

[CaneBrain 95]

You're not allowed to harass people if you're not a job creator either. There is no right to harass people. Nothing is being removed. Sexually harassing a complete stranger will have negative consequences too.This is not picking on the weird kid; it's picking on creepy sexual bullies. Which everyone but creepy sexual bullies and libertarian idealogues supports.

[hblask 1]

You're not allowed to harass people if you're not a job creator either. There is no right to harass people. Nothing is being removed. Sexually harassing a complete stranger will have negative consequences too.This is not picking on the weird kid; it's picking on creepy sexual bullies. Which everyone but creepy sexual bullies and libertarian idealogues supports.

You are allowed to harass people who voluntarily come to your property. If any female voluntarily comes to my house, I can ask her out without legal repercussions. If I create a job and hire her to work and my house, I lose that right? What sense does that make?Yes, I will stick up for *everyone's* rights, even annoying and disgusting people, because if creepy people don't have rights, then nobody does -- then it's just hoping bureaucrats don't decide you are in the "out" group.And you and Bob have worn out your "ideologue" cards lately, they are even less effective than usual. Basically, playing the ideologue card is a way of saying you don't have principles and are unable to keep up intellectually with those who do. So if you'd like to keep complimenting me for being willing to stand up even for those rights that I don't need, thank you.

[Balloon guy 158]

But they have firing ports!Firing ports!If we would just install manned gun towers along the border every so often, we wouldn't need the fencing, barbed wire or alligator moats either.US Mexico Border: 1969 miles.Yards in a mile: 1760 Range of an average, trained shot with a Barrett .50 on a man sized target: Lets say 1000 yards. Airtight border, 3465 men up front with not a single inch of our border out of rifle range. Three shifts, 10395.Lets be generous and add mobile patrol/support squads of 6 men every 5 miles, that's 2363 more men. Three shifts, 7089 men. Add another couple thousand employees in support roles, bullshit 'makework' jobs for connected cousins and family members... We could put every square inch of our border within coverage of rifle range, 24/7/365, with this arrangement. The border patrol currently employs over 20,000.

Canada?

[AmScray 355]

Canada?

No, we need that on the Mexican border to keep the brown people out. They are a nusiance. We simply tell Canada that the border no longer exists and they're now a contiguous part of whatever US state they border. If a province borders more than one state, it's up to those states to chop them up as they see fit. The only exception is Quebec. That place is fenced off and turned into a manhunt game preserve, where wealthy US citizens can purchase a tag to take one Quebecois per year.

[mrdannyg 274]

You are allowed to harass people who voluntarily come to your property. If any female voluntarily comes to my house, I can ask her out without legal repercussions. If I create a job and hire her to work and my house, I lose that right? What sense does that make?Yes, I will stick up for *everyone's* rights, even annoying and disgusting people, because if creepy people don't have rights, then nobody does -- then it's just hoping bureaucrats don't decide you are in the "out" group.And you and Bob have worn out your "ideologue" cards lately, they are even less effective than usual. Basically, playing the ideologue card is a way of saying you don't have principles and are unable to keep up intellectually with those who do. So if you'd like to keep complimenting me for being willing to stand up even for those rights that I don't need, thank you.

You are actually outtrolling BG lately, which is impressive. Less impressive is that you're not really funny in doing so.

[hblask 1]

You are actually outtrolling BG lately, which is impressive. Less impressive is that you're not really funny in doing so.

I'm not sure which part you think is trolling. Do you think having rights means only having the right to do things other people like?

[CaneBrain 95]

You are allowed to harass people who voluntarily come to your property. If any female voluntarily comes to my house, I can ask her out without legal repercussions. If I create a job and hire her to work and my house, I lose that right? What sense does that make?Yes, I will stick up for *everyone's* rights, even annoying and disgusting people, because if creepy people don't have rights, then nobody does -- then it's just hoping bureaucrats don't decide you are in the "out" group.And you and Bob have worn out your "ideologue" cards lately, they are even less effective than usual. Basically, playing the ideologue card is a way of saying you don't have principles and are unable to keep up intellectually with those who do. So if you'd like to keep complimenting me for being willing to stand up even for those rights that I don't need, thank you.

LOL. I'm not sure you know what harass means. If you ask out an employee on a date in a normal fashion, you cannot be sued for sexual harassment. Be more willfully ridiculous. Major sexual harassment in the workplace lawsuits occur from repeatedly repugnant behavior, unwanted PHYSICAL contact, and forced sexual favors in return for keeping a job or a promotion. If your employer asks you out on a date in a normal manner and you sue him, the EEOC will deny your claim and the world moves on. If you ask an employee out on a date and then fire her if she refuses, that's harassment.If you hire a woman and then pinch her butt, that's harassment. If a woman comes to your house and you pinch her butt, she can sue you for assault and battery. There's no right being removed; there is no right to harass people.Don't worry this is all a secret compliment on your ability to stand up for the rights of butt pinchers and scoundrels.