Ron Paul in 2015 "I support black lives matter"

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/r...-lives-matter/

I support the black lives matter movement. I have long advocated an end to the drug war, police militarization, and other threats to liberty that disproportionately victimize African-Americans. However, I wish some of the black lives matter movement’s passion and energy was directed to ending abortion. Unborn black lives also matter.

Note that later Ron Paul went on to criticize the Black Lives Matter organization for its socialist agenda. But he was early on board with the idea that there is an alarming increase in police brutality and African Americans are disproportionately affected.

I will now return this forum to its regularly scheduled Trump worship and right wing identity politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmdrake

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/r...-lives-matter/

I support the black lives matter movement. I have long advocated an end to the drug war, police militarization, and other threats to liberty that disproportionately victimize African-Americans. However, I wish some of the black lives matter movement’s passion and energy was directed to ending abortion. Unborn black lives also matter.

Note that later Ron Paul went on to criticize the Black Lives Matter organization for its socialist agenda. But he was early on board with the idea that there is an alarming increase in police brutality and African Americans are disproportionately affected.

I will now return this forum to its regularly scheduled Trump worship and right wing identity politics.

---

Ron takes the right approach. Praise them for the good things they do (or, if they actually do no good things, for what one could take them to be trying to do on the most generous interpretation of their actions), and condemn the bad. It's strongly reminiscent of how Rand handles (and emphasize the word handles) Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmdrake

... regularly scheduled Trump worship and right wing identity politics.

---

It was a good read until I got here.

Who are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raginfridus

It was a good read until I got here.

Who are you talking about?

---

On which part? The Trump worship or the right wing identity politics? We have both. Not the majority mind you, but a vocal minority.

But in all honesty, I would love to hear what Ron has to say in 2017. . .

lots of water under the bridge since then. . . and lots of political hijackings of "causes"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmdrake

On which part? The Trump worship or the right wing identity politics? We have both. Not the majority mind you, but a vocal minority.

---

Sorry, the "regularly scheduled" part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

Ron takes the right approach. Praise them for the good things they do (or, if they actually do no good things, for what one could take them to be trying to do on the most generous interpretation of their actions), and condemn the bad. It's strongly reminiscent of how Rand handles (and emphasize the word handles) Trump.

---

Agree- hate gets us nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmdrake

On which part? The Trump worship or the right wing identity politics? We have both. Not the majority mind you, but a vocal minority.

---

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but (per the Bannon bet thread) I took it that you denied that that camp was about racial identity politics.

I was too. As I was regarding Occupy. BLM and Occupy were both COINTEL/INFIL really quickly and in retrospect may have been created, much like ANTIFA.

I am a fan of civil disobedience. I think the Bundy's were absolutely right in Bunkerville, but absolutely wrong in Malhuer. But, there comes a point where you realize that it is not organic anymore and it is being controlled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phill4paul

I was too. As I was regarding Occupy. BLM and Occupy were both COINTEL/INFIL really quickly and in retrospect may have been created, much like ANTIFA.

I am a fan of civil disobedience. I think the Bundy's were absolutely right in Bunkerville, but absolutely wrong in Malhuer. But, there comes a point where you realize that it is not organic anymore and it is being controlled.

---

/ thread

My thing is this, if something is at a certain level of bad, I disregard the good they do and will not support them. Take for example, the neocons may sometimes want to kill terrorists trying to harm me(which is good) but I would never give them credit for anything because I think the bad they overwhelms the good.

This is the same way I see BLM, Stefan Molyneux, Alex Jones (probably explains why Ron Paul still gives that conman the time of day) etc etc.

I'm sure he did and does as a matter of principle and not just as a slogan sometimes also used by some politicians to cultivate/promote tribalism, political agenda.

BLM is a subset of ALM and individual subsets can be highlighted in the proper context to make a point, raise awareness etc. I'm certain his view of BLM/ALM is going to be much more logically consistent and libertarian principled in contrast to say someone like SWC "every stance based on political calculus" Hillary or someone like DGP Obama.





Related

Shaun King
October 8, 2016
Dear Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company, please tell us what you meant in this email to Hillary when you said you wanted to "silence" the Black Lives Matter Movement.
Also, explain your plan to pit the victims of Sandy Hook against victims of police brutality.
We need to know.
https://theintercept.com/…/harvey-weinstein-urged-clinton-…/

https://external-mia3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...BqttWTRHpDMfIX



Harvey Weinstein Urged Clinton Campaign to Silence Sanders’s Black Lives Matter Message
2016-10-07
Hacked emails show that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, a longtime ally of Hillary Clinton and a major fundraiser for her 2016 campaign, urged her campaign team to silence rival Bernie Sanders’s message against police shootings of African-Americans. He suggested countering it with “the Sandy Hook issue” — a reference to Sanders’s opposition to lawsuits against gun manufacturers.



http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/medi...logo-final.gif

Welcome to the United Police States of America, Where Police Shoot First & Ask Questions Later

November 4, 2013

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/media/31167/Bearcat.jpg

“There are always risks in challenging excessive police power, but the risks of not challenging it are more dangerous, even fatal.”
—Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century

These shootings are occurring with such frequency now that they are quickly forgotten, lost in the morass of similarly heartbreaking, tragic incidents. It was barely a month ago, for example, that police in Washington, DC, shot and killed 34-year-old Miriam Carey after she collided with a barrier leading to the White House, then fled when pursued by a phalanx of gun-wielding police and cop cars. Carey’s 1-year-old daughter was in the backseat. Seventeen gun shots later, Carey was dead and her toddler motherless. It was what is known as a “bad shoot.” As James Mulvaney, a professor of law and police science, explains: “A ‘good shoot’ in police lingo is one in which officers use deadly force to prevent a suspect from inflicting serious harm. A ‘bad shoot’ is one in which there might have been a nonlethal alternative.”

How should we as a society respond when we hear about the Las Vegas police officer who shot an unarmed man at a convenience store whom he “thought” was a homicide suspect, or the Los Angeles cop who shot an unarmed man seen leaving a convenience store where an ATM had been robbed of $40 or the DC cops who killed a young mother in a hail of gunfire? As John Grant notes for Counterpunch: “The ignominious and unnecessary public killing of Miriam Carey should be a human marker that triggers our cultural meaning machine to honestly consider what’s wrong with the picture of a howling pack of cops shooting down a troubled young mother … like a dog.”

If ever there were a time to de-militarize and de-weaponize local police forces, it’s now. The same goes for scaling back on the mindset adopted by cops that they are the law and should be revered, feared and obeyed. As for the idea that citizens must be compliant or risk being treated like lawbreakers, that’s nothing more than authoritarianism with a badge. As Grant points out: “As the public killing of Miriam Carey should make clear, a significant part of the problem is cops and the pack mentality they too often resort to.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...estions-later/




http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-co.../10/BUTTON.jpg

Entire House Of Reps Gives Standing Ovation To Cops After Killing Unarmed Mother

Lawyer representing family of Miriam Carey arrested

Why We Should Not Forget Miriam Carey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raginfridus

It was a good read until I got here.

Who are you talking about?

---

Stick around and you'll see plenty of those.

BLM was originally just something people started saying because a lot of people were victims of police brutality and were being killed on the streets for seemingly doing nothing but being at the wrong place at the wrong time. If it were lions getting shot people would say lions life's matter. Ron Paul will talk about whatever subject he thinks is hot or popular at the time, and even suggest he agrees to certain aspects of what the confused people are asking for even though they can't articulate or understand it- at the root which is liberty. Ron Paul translated: Yes I agree with BLM on the sentiment that we have to fight for liberty, for the dream, so that we may hope to live it some day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Superfluous Man

Stick around and you'll see plenty of those.

---

They've been quiet lately.

When Molyneux comes out with reality v10.06., explaining it all as an Xd chess move, they'll be back to regurgitate it at us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Superfluous Man

Stick around and you'll see plenty of those.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

They've been quiet lately.

When Molyneux comes out with reality v10.06., explaining it all as an Xd chess move, they'll be back to regurgitate it at us.

---

Who is this Molyneux? Is he person or persona?

I disagree with this premise to a certain extent. Because in emphasizing the racial aspect you are contravening the very core of what the concern is supposed to rectifying. There should not be a BET, Congressional Black Caucus, affirmative action, BLM, etc. There is just discrimination, it is black and white. Individual racism, ethnic stereotyping, and caricaturing is not something that can just be legislated away--it is just part of nature to want remain within one's own flock, so to speak.

Making the focus of the debate about black versus government is not correct, it is government versus individuality that is the crux of the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raginfridus

Who is this Molyneux? Is he person or persona?

---

Some say he is a genius, other an evil genius. He will deny any such allegations of course, he considers himself above such topiaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raginfridus

Who is this Molyneux? Is he person or persona?

---

Charlatan

http://www.fdrliberated.com/

So Molyneux's the MoarfeeusCoolDood99 to Laurence Fishburne's Morpheus? Gotcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmdrake

... But he was early on board with the idea that there is an alarming increase in police brutality and African Americans are disproportionately affected.

---

kinda the way I saw 'em initially, 'til their agenda took an ugly turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raginfridus

So Molyneux's the MoarfeeusCoolDood99 to Laurence Fishburne's Morpheus? Gotcha.

---

Yep. He has some value. I mean, even charlatans speak the truth some times. His pro gun philosophy is pretty sound. He has a fantastic quote exposing the hypocrisy of Antigun peoples.

His peaceful parenting strategy is a load of shit. He apparently has never had a child with reactive attachment problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shakey1

kinda the way I saw 'em initially, 'til their agenda took an ugly turn.

---

Who is this "they" though?

No doubt there are people who say, "black lives matter," who have ugly agendas. But there are other people who say, "black lives matter," who do not.

The thing about the slogan, "black lives matter," is that it's a true statement. Moreover, it's a statement that is too widely disbelieved, at least implicitly if not explicitly, as evidenced by a number of things that I shouldn't need to recite but could if need be, and so one that deserves to be reinforced by way of reminder.

If it appears to be the case that the population of those who say, "black lives matter," is too heavily weighted toward people with ugly agendas, then it seems to me that the best course we who believe that black lives do matter and who do not have ugly agendas can follow is for ourselves to be more diligent to say, "black lives matter," so as to recalibrate that imbalance and have the "black lives matter" slogan come to be more associated with us who do not have ugly agendas than it is with those who do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weston White

I disagree with this premise to a certain extent. Because in emphasizing the racial aspect you are contravening the very core of what the concern is supposed to rectifying. There should not be a BET, Congressional Black Caucus, affirmative action, BLM, etc. There is just discrimination, it is black and white. Individual racism, ethnic stereotyping, and caricaturing is not something that can just be legislated away--it is just part of nature to want remain within one's own flock, so to speak.

Making the focus of the debate about black versus government is not correct, it is government versus individuality that is the crux of the matter.

---

But, it does serve the gov agenda to have people separated, classified, and fighting amongst themselves. Takes everyone's eye off of the Big Picture and what gov goals really are.

Dr. Paul will always support the freedom to protest and to engage in civil disobedience even if its misguided.

Although I dont know that BLM was necessarily protesting the specific issues that Dr. Paul mentions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd

Yep. He has some value. I mean, even charlatans speak the truth some times. His pro gun philosophy is pretty sound. He has a fantastic quote exposing the hypocrisy of Antigun peoples.

His peaceful parenting strategy is a load of $#@!. He apparently has never had a child with reactive attachment problems.

---

True. When a liar's right 1/100 he's still right that one time, even if he is a liar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

They've been quiet lately.

When Molyneux comes out with reality v10.06., explaining it all as an Xd chess move, they'll be back to regurgitate it at us.

---

At the point that the person who frequently advocates world government on this forum becomes "us", this forum should be shut down.

Luckily, it hasn't reached that point. Yet.

BLM was never about the things Dr. Paul agrees with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by euphemia

BLM was never about the things Dr. Paul agrees with.

---

I believe that black lives matter and I support the things he agrees with.

Does someone else who doesn't support those things get to say that they're the only person who believes that black lives matter or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Superfluous Man

No doubt there are people who say, "black lives matter," who have ugly agendas. But there are other people who say, "black lives matter," who do not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Superfluous Man

I believe that black lives matter and I support the things he agrees with.

Does someone else who doesn't support those things get to say that they're the only person who believes that black lives matter or something?

---

I have not seen one person who has been affiliated with the group espouse anything remotely close to views that relate to freedom. However, I have read their platform thoroughly, listened to their most visible spokesman Deray Mckesson, and seen how people associated with the group behave. Communism, looting, and stopping traffic aren't just differences of opinion. They are clearly wrong and anyone who supports them is wrong.

It isn't a matter of a couple of bad apples. Just like there are no good white supremacists and Nazis, there are no good Black Lives Matter members.

Even the superficial reason for the movement, cops shooting black people at a higher rate during confrontations, isn't even true. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399 The whole spark from "Hands up, Don't Shoot" never happened. The force the officer used in Ferguson was actually one example of the police using reasonable force. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9d4cb8971dbd