Ron Paul speaks about the Occupy Wall Street protests

[Matthew5]

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/01/ron-paul-talks-about-the-occup


On Friday, after Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) concluded a town hall-style meeting at an old folks' home in Concord, New Hampshire, I asked him what he made of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests, which have included a noticeable contingency of Paul supporters. On Thursday night, for example, a group of young men assembled at Liberty Plaza in Lower Manhattan were wielding anti-Federal Reserve placards and promoting Paul's presidential campaign.
"If they were demonstrating peacefully," Paul told me, "and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed–I would say, good!"

[liberalnurse]

:D I truly love this man.

[69360]

They all just got arrested for blocking the Brooklyn Bridge. So much for peaceful protest.

[CaptainAmerica]

I will have no part in occupywallstreet, END THE FED is where its really at.

[kylejack]

They all just got arrested for blocking the Brooklyn Bridge. So much for peaceful protest.
Is blocking the Brooklyn Bridge violent??

[GunnyFreedom]

Ehh, no question in my mind that the OWS protestors have no clue whatsoever what we need in this country. BUT, Paulers presence at these things...for those who are led to be there...is actually extremely helpful. It will help deploy the "Reagan Strategy" who won specifically on account of Democratic crossover votes. That plus the recent comments from Ralph Nader indicating that RP has more in common with the "fringe left" than the "moderate left," will help sure up the "Blue Republican" effort and quite possibly deliver the win.

So I don't really want any part of OWS on account of the fact that those kids are way beyond clueless...however, the presence of Paulers at these events is actually quite helpful because it demonstrates an amazing reach that the rest of the GOP field could not dream of, and helps assure fence-sitting Dems to participate in the Blue Republican effort to nominate and elect Ron Paul in the same way they did Reagan.

[69360]

Is blocking the Brooklyn Bridge violent??

It's disruptive and in no way peaceful.

If you block traffic you'll be arrested.

I'd rather this campaign not be marginalized by involvement in this.

[kylejack]

It's disruptive and in no way peaceful.
I don't think you understand peace. MLK Jr. led peaceful marches that disrupted traffic. It isn't violent just because you can't get to the store to pick up your Hot Pockets.

[TheTexan]

Is blocking the Brooklyn Bridge violent??

It's a use of force to prevent people from travelling on that bridge. In that sense, yes, it is violent.

[Chieppa1]

I don't think you understand peace. MLK Jr. led peaceful marches that disrupted traffic. It isn't violent just because you can't get to the store to pick up your Hot Pockets.

or the hospital if your wife is pregs.

or to work to pay your bills

or school to pick up your kids

or yes, even to get hot pockets.

[sailingaway]

Is blocking the Brooklyn Bridge violent??

If it is paid for by taxpayers taxpayers have a right to use it, not just the subset that wants to block others off.

[TheTexan]

I don't think you understand peace. MLK Jr. led peaceful marches that disrupted traffic. It isn't violent just because you can't get to the store to pick up your Hot Pockets.

I don't think his marches had the intent of blocking traffic. Blocking traffic was an incidental effect of the march, whereas blocking a bridge is just... blocking a bridge.

[kylejack]

It's a use of force to prevent people from travelling on that bridge. In that sense, yes, it is violent.
"Use of force", you guys have some clever ways of implying violence when there is none!

[sailingaway]

imprisonment is violent even if a person has a cage built around them when they sleep. Forcefully stopping someone from going where they have a right to go is aggression.

[TheTexan]

"Use of force", you guys have some clever ways of implying violence when there is none!

An embargo is also a use of force. Disagree?

[kylejack]

If it is paid for by taxpayers taxpayers have a right to use it, not just the subset that wants to block others off.
These taxpayers are using it at the moment. When they've cleared to the other side, others will be able to use it.

Regardless, my question was is it violent? This is a peaceful action, regardless of whether or not you think they should be doing it. Breaking laws peacefully is precisely what peaceful civil disobedience is all about.

[Pizzo]

There's a walkway on the Brooklyn Bridge. If they are/were marching on the walkway and allowing non-protestors to pass through unobstructed, I don't see anything wrong with that. If they are on the roads of the bridges, I think that is unnecessary. People could be trying to get to work or go home, just trying to get from point a to point b and shouldn't be blocked from it in my opinion.

[sailingaway]

There's a walkway on the Brooklyn Bridge. If they are/were marching on the walkway and allowing non-protestors to pass through unobstructed, I don't see anything wrong with that. If they are on the roads of the bridges, I think that is unnecessary. People could be trying to get to work or go home, just trying to get from point a to point b and shouldn't be blocked from it in my opinion.

If others are let through without molestation or intimidation, then it isn't 'blocking off'.

[TheTexan]

These taxpayers are using it at the moment. When they've cleared to the other side, others will be able to use it.

Regardless, my question was is it violent? This is a peaceful action, regardless of whether or not you think they should be doing it. Breaking laws peacefully is precisely what peaceful civil disobedience is all about.

Embargoes, in a naval sense, are essentially ships "getting in the way of commerce". There may not be a single shot fired, but these are a use of force, and if a country tried to enforce a naval embargo on our country, they'd be promptly.. sunk. Regardless of their "peaceful nature". Using force to block travel & commerce, through whatever means, is not "peaceful."

[CaptainAmerica]

I think it was a very bad idea to associate with occupywallstreet at all,and that Ron Paul should stop commenting on it completely and say why not protest "END THE FED" instead?

[kylejack]

Embargoes, in a naval sense, are essentially ships "getting in the way of commerce". There may not be a single shot fired, but these are a use of force, and if a country tried to enforce a naval embargo on our country, they'd be promptly.. sunk. Regardless of their "peaceful nature". Using force to block travel & commerce, through whatever means, is not "peaceful."
They don't block ships by ramming them. They're blocking traffic with the implied threat of force from their cannons. I don't think anyone is expecting to be shot by this bunch.

[sailingaway]

I think it was a very bad idea to associate with occupywallstreet at all,and that Ron Paul should stop commenting on it completely and say why not protest "END THE FED" instead?

He clearly didn't know much about it and said so. His comments were predicated on 'well, if it is peaceful protest and if they are talking about the Fed, then I say good!' to the question of what he thought about HIS SUPPORTERS being there. He was speaking of US, not these other guys with whatever varying motives they might have.

[erowe1]

"Use of force", you guys have some clever ways of implying violence when there is none!

Would you consider it a use of force if they surrounded your house and wouldn't let you in?

[Pizzo]

If others are let through without molestation or intimidation, then it isn't 'blocking off'.

Right. I'm not there so I do not know the level of blocking they are/were doing.

[kylejack]

Would you consider it a use of force if they surrounded your house and wouldn't let you in?
I wouldn't consider it violent.

1
a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3
a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance

[TheTexan]

They don't block ships by ramming them. They're blocking traffic with the implied threat of force from their cannons. I don't think anyone is expecting to be shot by this bunch.

If you go in my house, stand in my doorway, somehow candcuff yourself to the doorway so you can't be moved, and I can't move past you. Let's say that's the only doorway out of the house.

If you had constructed a wall there, I'd simply take the wall down. Because you are there... I can't "take you down" because you're a person. I have to be a bit more considerate. I'd ask you to leave. You don't. I'd then have no choice but to use force against you. You "forced me" to use force.

Just the act of using your mass to prevent my mass from utilizing that space, is a use of force.

[erowe1]

I wouldn't consider it violent.

1
a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3
a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance

I wouldn't have called it violent a minute ago. But now that I've read the definition you just copied and pasted, I don't see how I could not call it that.

[kylejack]

Well, if you think King's marches were violent (he usually couldn't get permits from the city) then you and I just fundamentally disagree. This is peaceful civil disobedience.

[TheTexan]

Well, if you think King's marches were violent (he usually couldn't get permits from the city) then you and I just fundamentally disagree. This is peaceful civil disobedience.

People who promote civil disobedience also promote taking responsibility for your actions. You can't expect to block a bridge and not get arrested. That's not how civil disobedience works.

[sailingaway]

Well, if you think King's marches were violent (he usually couldn't get permits from the city) then you and I just fundamentally disagree. This is peaceful civil disobedience.

You are the only one talking about King's marches. I wasn't at King's marches. I'm speaking of blocking off a bridge without the right to do so.

[69360]

Well, if you think King's marches were violent (he usually couldn't get permits from the city) then you and I just fundamentally disagree. This is peaceful civil disobedience.

Ugh, you don't get it at all. Civil disobedience would be sitting at the front of the bus when you're forced to sit at the back. Sitting at a dining counter you aren't allowed at. They did the things they weren't allowed to, to make a point that they should be.

Blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge does nothing to advance any cause. It's just a disruption.

[ctiger2]

I will have no part in occupywallstreet, END THE FED is where its really at.

#winning! Someone needs to go there with a bullhorn and point these people in the right direction. Where do the banks/wall st get their money? THE FED.

[sailingaway]

People who promote civil disobedience also promote taking responsibility for your actions. You can't expect to block a bridge and not get arrested. That's not how civil disobedience works.

this.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's disruptive and in no way peaceful.

If you block traffic you'll be arrested.

I'd rather this campaign not be marginalized by involvement in this.

It won't be. The media is reporting on the anony's even less than they report on Paul. The only people it will touch are those already extremely interested in the protests, so it's kinda win-win.

[kylejack]

People who promote civil disobedience also promote taking responsibility for your actions. You can't expect to block a bridge and not get arrested. That's not how civil disobedience works.
I agree. I didn't say they shouldn't be arrested.

[kylejack]

Ugh, you don't get it at all. Civil disobedience would be sitting at the front of the bus when you're forced to sit at the back. Sitting at a dining counter you aren't allowed at. They did the things they weren't allowed to, to make a point that they should be.

Blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge does nothing to advance any cause. It's just a disruption.
Yes, they did those things, but they also marched and disrupted traffic. The police brought out dogs and hoses.

[sailingaway]

Yes, they did those things, but they also marched and disrupted traffic. The police brought out dogs and hoses.

MLK's actions have to stand on their own merit. I don't know that they don't, but I'm not going to say that just because he did it it was automatically right. Why bring him into this at all?

[Proph]

Ugh, you don't get it at all. Civil disobedience would be sitting at the front of the bus when you're forced to sit at the back. Sitting at a dining counter you aren't allowed at. They did the things they weren't allowed to, to make a point that they should be.

Blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge does nothing to advance any cause. It's just a disruption.

Hah...would your opinion change if those protestors went to...let's say...a major bank (that recieved funds from the government, of course) and blocked off their doors? After all, that corporation is using taxpayers' money to finance its own interests. It would be the equivalent of protesting in the streets, except the only people who get hurt are the people who do business with that bank.

^^Just a thought experiment type deal.

[sailingaway]

Hah...would your opinion change if those protestors went to...let's say...a major bank (that recieved funds from the government, of course) and blocked off their doors? After all, that corporation is using taxpayers' money to finance its own interests. It would be the equivalent of protesting in the streets, except the only people who get hurt are the people who do business with that bank.

^^Just a thought experiment type deal.

I'd object. They don't have a right to keep people from getting money from their bank.

As a thought experiment.

We believe in property rights.

[Proph]

I'd object. They don't have a right to keep people from getting money from their bank.

As a thought experiment.

We believe in property rights.
You wouldn't agree that it would be a more effective form of civil disobedience than what they are currently doing?

[kylejack]

MLK's actions have to stand on their own merit. I don't know that they don't, but I'm not going to say that just because he did it it was automatically right. Why bring him into this at all?
Because he's an icon of peaceful civil disobedience, along with Gandhi.

[PierzStyx]

It's disruptive and in no way peaceful.

If you block traffic you'll be arrested.

I'd rather this campaign not be marginalized by involvement in this.

Peaceful protest can, and should, be disruptive. Dr. Paul professes an admiration for Martin Luther King Jr.'s methods of peaceful protests and civil disobedience. They were certainly disruptive, with shutting down roads, blocking buildings, and occupying businesses. Just because you get arrested is a reason to not do it. Authoritarians often attempt to silence their opposition by throwing them into prison.

[sailingaway]

That still doesn't mean neither of them ever made an error. We still have to do what is right here and now, regardless of what they did.

[PierzStyx]

MLK's actions have to stand on their own merit. I don't know that they don't, but I'm not going to say that just because he did it it was automatically right. Why bring him into this at all?

Other than being an icon of civil disobedience, Dr. Paul has repeatedly talked about how he admires Dr. King's forms of civil disobedience.

[kylejack]

Marchers intended to walk on the sidewalk part. Police had the bridge closed and withdrew the fences as the marchers approached, apparently inviting them to walk on the roadway.

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/2/e/8/2e856443d4c79f94/Ryan_SocialWorker.wav?sid=484155991eb015be7e4b3405 56aa3158&l_sid=18778&l_eid=&l_mid=2733465

[sailingaway]

Other than being an icon of civil disobedience, Dr. Paul has repeatedly talked about how he admires Dr. King's forms of civil disobedience.

I have heard what he said and he didn't say the man never did wrong, but spoke in general terms. Yes, Ron believes in civil disobedience when you are willing to take the consequences and in support of your OWN beliefs. My main concern here is that this isn't of our organization but organized by those with very different views.

Individuals will do what they want, and it may depend on what they see in the part of the protest they are near.

[69360]

Hah...would your opinion change if those protestors went to...let's say...a major bank (that recieved funds from the government, of course) and blocked off their doors? After all, that corporation is using taxpayers' money to finance its own interests. It would be the equivalent of protesting in the streets, except the only people who get hurt are the people who do business with that bank.

^^Just a thought experiment type deal.

No it wouldn't change my minds. They would be violating the property rights of the bank. They would also be keeping uninvolved people from doing their everyday business.

I am a work from within the system to effect the change I want person. I would only be involved in something with a plan to get results.

But, I have no problem with peaceful, respectful, non disruptive protests.

I just don't think this will produce results.

[Proph]

I have heard what he said and he didn't say the man never did wrong, but spoke in general terms. Yes, Ron believes in civil disobedience when you are willing to take the consequences and in support of your OWN beliefs. My main concern here is that this isn't of our organization but organized by those with very different views.

Individuals will do what they want, and it may depend on what they see in the part of the protest they are near.

Why is it that whenever I reply to your posts, I get an extra line that isn't included in your post? The bolded part wasn't there when I clicked "Reply with Quote". Surely it says when moderators edit posts, right? Or is there no way for us to watch the watchers? Anyway...

Why else do you think those people are up there? Do you think they're being forced to go? Of course they wouldn't be up there if they didn't believe in the cause. Most expect to be arrested. From what I've seen, the people with megaphones tell everyone not to resist if they are arresting, just to pull out your cameras and snap away.

I heard this a week ago while watching that live stream, though. The mood may have changed by now.

It seems like you support the philosophy, but not them doing it in practice, sailingaway.

*EDIT*As for that first paragraph...you must have changed it between the time I viewed the page and clicked reply, but I could have sworn it did that earlier to me, too. It shows that you editted it now.

[One Last Battle!]

Ehh, no question in my mind that the OWS protestors have no clue whatsoever what we need in this country. BUT, Paulers presence at these things...for those who are led to be there...is actually extremely helpful. It will help deploy the "Reagan Strategy" who won specifically on account of Democratic crossover votes. That plus the recent comments from Ralph Nader indicating that RP has more in common with the "fringe left" than the "moderate left," will help sure up the "Blue Republican" effort and quite possibly deliver the win.

So I don't really want any part of OWS on account of the fact that those kids are way beyond clueless...however, the presence of Paulers at these events is actually quite helpful because it demonstrates an amazing reach that the rest of the GOP field could not dream of, and helps assure fence-sitting Dems to participate in the Blue Republican effort to nominate and elect Ron Paul in the same way they did Reagan.

You just put it better than I could.

A pretty large amount of these guys are massive morons who may very well support turning the USA into the USSR, but they also happen to oppose the current corporate establishment, are fairly proactive if they are willing to go protest in the middle of New York, and more likely than not would be quite succeptable to backing Ron Paul in the primaries and maybe even general elections. Easy votes, and that isn't counting their equally silly far-left friends that they may spend time trying to convert (as opposed to us picking up random Republicans who will say "Okay, I guess I'll vote Paul" and will do nothing more than vote and shrug if he loses).

I mean, affiliating openly would be a dumb idea, but there isn't any harm in trying to snatch up the lefties when they don't have a Democratic primary to vote in.

[Proph]

No it wouldn't change my minds. They would be violating the property rights of the bank. They would also be keeping uninvolved people from doing their everyday business.

I am a work from within the system to effect the change I want person. I would only be involved in something with a plan to get results.

But, I have no problem with peaceful, respectful, non disruptive protests.

I just don't think this will produce results.

But those banks that would be protested are using their money to fund its operations. Why don't they have a right to stand there? If the bank wants to take public money, they should be open to the public.

What I'm trying to get at is that last sentence. I never saw it illustrated like this before, but bail-outs arguably intertwine the government and private sector, which is the reason those guys are protesting. That's why I'm flabbergasted that some don't agree with them. Sure, they may have the wrong idea on how to fix those problems, but that's all the more reason to have people go up there and educate them.

[puppetmaster]

this is civil disobedience. that's it. morons or not.