Ron Paul slams Boston occupation

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

And that isn't at all what I was talking about and I think you know that. Every single reply I've had on the subject has been exactly the same, catch up next time before spouting off inaccuracies on my position. Thanksverymuch.

...
Okay.
Then what Civil Liberties are you talking about?
I didn't see or hear of any reports of soldiers kicking down doors and detaining people in their homes at gunpoint. Residents complied with police requests and remained indoors with their doors locked. The police knocked on the doors and asked if everything was okay and asked permission to search... to which, every non-psycho, law abiding citizen who was not harboring a fugitive bombing murderer in their midst, complied.
Now, YOU could have said, 'No. You may not search my home.' for whatever reason. But, you would probably cast suspicion upon yourself... that you probably WERE harboring a fugitive bombing murderer... and rightly so, because what kind of nut fucks with the police during such an extraordinary situation?
...
It is NOT like the police decided to shutdown the city for no reason. There was a reason WHY the citizens were advised to remain off the streets... and the sane citizens complied because they understood these dangerous conditions.
...
Again... WHAT civil liberties should your enemy, The Democrats, be up in arms over?

peacefrompaul

I respect the hell out of Ron Paul and he got my vote last election.

I'm kind of on the fence about this one though, as it was an unusual circumstance and all. I was reading some scattered reports about police going into homes and searching them without consent. I can't say for certain the accuracy of these claims, but if true, I am certainly not happy with that at all.

gimmesometruth27

i am wondering if mr paul would be the first one to ask why law enforcement did not employ the tools at their disposal and the bomber ended up getting away to blow up times square, as he had allegedly planned....

kenny olav

If Ron Paul were President, what would he have done in response to this bombing? Maybe it wouldn't have mattered because the FBI would have done what they do, and officials in MA would have done what they did anyway. But suppose we had people who think like Ron Paul in charge... would the suspects have been stopped so quickly? I doubt it. They probably would still be free to bomb again... perhaps to bomb Times Square like apparently they had planned to.

RustyShackelford

You people are so off base. The police state had NOTHING to do with the capture of the suspect. It was not until the police state was lifted that an alert citizen who was finally allowed out of his home found the suspect.

Tell me how in the hell the suspect was allowed to escape the inital overnight shootout? He was wounded, drove through a police barrier, ditched the car a block later, got out on foot and ran away from police with dogs, night vision, infared, and everything else at their disposal...all this while being shot...yet the police continue to get praise for this disgrace.

And to the one who hails from GREECE, what in the hell is an AK-15? Is that the same as an AR-47?

inmytree

RustyShackelford wrote:

You people are so off base. The police state had NOTHING to do with the capture of the suspect. It was not until the police state was lifted that an alert citizen who was finally allowed out of his home found the suspect.

Tell me how in the hell the suspect was allowed to escape the inital overnight shootout? He was wounded, drove through a police barrier, ditched the car a block later, got out on foot and ran away from police with dogs, night vision, infared, and everything else at their disposal...all this while being shot...yet the police continue to get praise for this disgrace.

And to the one who hails from GREECE, what in the hell is an AK-15? Is that the same as an AR-47?

"NOTHING" & "allowed to escape"....?

mikepegg44

kenny olav wrote:

If Ron Paul were President, what would he have done in response to this bombing? Maybe it wouldn't have mattered because the FBI would have done what they do, and officials in MA would have done what they did anyway. But suppose we had people who think like Ron Paul in charge... would the suspects have been stopped so quickly? I doubt it. They probably would still be free to bomb again... perhaps to bomb Times Square like apparently they had planned to.

if we are going to suppose things, it is possible that with non-interventionists (Ron Paul) in charge for many years they wouldn't have been motivated to blow us up.

You are probably right though...many more innocents would have been killed in a times square attack simply because Ron Paul was president. So glad President Obama was able to capture the suspect so efficiently

pandora

Everything happens for a reason and that's not always divine.
It's obvious to me that power always has an agenda, it's not power without it.

I look back after recent historic incidents and take a look at the changes
that came to be because of them. Controlling is pretty much the basic theme.
But isn't that what power has to do to maintain?

Hey I like Ron Paul. I like his son though I see many do not.
I'm just cynical enough though as of late not to trust pretty much any of
those involved in our political system. Sad but true.

Side note... I enjoyed the interview with the man who was carjacked, escaped
and put into motion the events. I'm digesting and trying to believe it all.

JimmyV

mikepegg44 wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

If Ron Paul were President, what would he have done in response to this bombing? Maybe it wouldn't have mattered because the FBI would have done what they do, and officials in MA would have done what they did anyway. But suppose we had people who think like Ron Paul in charge... would the suspects have been stopped so quickly? I doubt it. They probably would still be free to bomb again... perhaps to bomb Times Square like apparently they had planned to.

if we are going to suppose things, it is possible that with non-interventionists (Ron Paul) in charge for many years they wouldn't have been motivated to blow us up.

You are probably right though...many more innocents would have been killed in a times square attack simply because Ron Paul was president. So glad President Obama was able to capture the suspect so efficiently

Mike, you have done as good a job as anyone I have read in articulating why it is important to question and understand everything that went on. As always, you are an asset to your side. But part of that discussion does have to include what possibly would have happened had the police not acted as they did. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that this murderer could have escaped and killed again, or taken hostages and killed in the short term. I think the discussion would be more fruitful if those critiquing the police had been able to offer any alternatives as events unfolded. Many are still unable to today and almost two weeks has passed since Watertown.

(I understand that group does not include you -- you have been clear from the start that while you believe the discussion should take place you do not have any major problems with what was done. Feel free to correct me if my read on that is incorrect.)

mikepegg44

JimmyV wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

If Ron Paul were President, what would he have done in response to this bombing? Maybe it wouldn't have mattered because the FBI would have done what they do, and officials in MA would have done what they did anyway. But suppose we had people who think like Ron Paul in charge... would the suspects have been stopped so quickly? I doubt it. They probably would still be free to bomb again... perhaps to bomb Times Square like apparently they had planned to.

if we are going to suppose things, it is possible that with non-interventionists (Ron Paul) in charge for many years they wouldn't have been motivated to blow us up.

You are probably right though...many more innocents would have been killed in a times square attack simply because Ron Paul was president. So glad President Obama was able to capture the suspect so efficiently

Mike, you have done as good a job as anyone I have read in articulating why it is important to question and understand everything that went on. As always, you are an asset to your side. But part of that discussion does have to include what possibly would have happened had the police not acted as they did. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that this murderer could have escaped and killed again, or taken hostages and killed in the short term. I think the discussion would be more fruitful if those critiquing the police had been able to offer any alternatives as events unfolded. Many are still unable to today and almost two weeks has passed since Watertown.

(I understand that group does not include you -- you have been clear from the start that while you believe the discussion should take place you do not have any major problems with what was done. Feel free to correct me if my read on that is incorrect.)

no that is a pretty correct assessment.

As to what could have been done differently...I think we need to be careful when we assign causation of apprehension in this matter to the heavily armed military response. I think what most are saying and questioning is did it NEED to go as far as it did to reach the same outcome. Some people are quick to assume that the bombers would have escaped had it not happened the way it did...but few of those same folks are willing to consider that with less of an armed military response the same result could have happened. Look at the response I got, the author just assumed that another attack would have happened had the police not gone as far as they did. I am not willing to condemn the police actions like some, but I am certainly not willing to just assume everything they did was ok without review either.

I don't know if all we had was a normal police man hunt if they would have been caught...I think the police are very capable and have a little more faith in them to do their job correctly than most I would imagine. I think by doing what they did in community outreach and by making reasonable search areas they did a lot of things right. I don't know how they conducted the searches of people's homes but I think asking the question is a good thing to do. Asking someone to come in with an assault rifle on your hip is a little different than asking to come in to search without it there. Second guessing CAN be very helpful when done reasonably. I don't think anyone is calling for people's heads to roll here, at least I am not.

I am thankful for groups like the ACLU, Ron Paul, Bill Maher (hurts to type that one) and anyone else in the public eye who is willing to ask the question that many don't want asked, as ridiculous as they may seem to some, they are constantly watching for the line, constantly trying to force the gov't to define that line and I am glad there are those that do it so outspokenly.

polaris_x

just imagine what would have to happen if this wasn't just a 19 year old kid who managed to get away the night before despite having a full tactical unit gone to arrest him ...

once again - we see that fear is the ultimate tool in manipulating people ...

RustyShackelford

polaris_x wrote:

just imagine what would have to happen if this wasn't just a 19 year old kid who managed to get away the night before despite having a full tactical unit gone to arrest him ...

once again - we see that fear is the ultimate tool in manipulating people ...

Dont forget he was shot up and pouring blood all over the place to make it even easier for them to find him

dignin

polaris_x wrote:

just imagine what would have to happen if this wasn't just a 19 year old kid who managed to get away the night before despite having a full tactical unit gone to arrest him ...

once again - we see that fear is the ultimate tool in manipulating people ...

It's amazing how many rights people will give up when fear is a motivator. Case in point on this message board.

JimmyV

Since we're imagining things now...

Just imagine what might have happened if he actually had gotten away.

mikepegg44

JimmyV wrote:

Since we're imagining things now...

Just imagine what might have happened if he actually had gotten away.

they would have found someone

JimmyV

mikepegg44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Since we're imagining things now...

Just imagine what might have happened if he actually had gotten away.

they would have found someone

Full disclosure...I have questions about the guy they did end up pinning that on. Wasn't he an abortion bomber? And he just decides to blow up the Olympics? Never really made sense to me.

mickeyrat

mikepegg44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

if we are going to suppose things, it is possible that with non-interventionists (Ron Paul) in charge for many years they wouldn't have been motivated to blow us up.

You are probably right though...many more innocents would have been killed in a times square attack simply because Ron Paul was president. So glad President Obama was able to capture the suspect so efficiently

Mike, you have done as good a job as anyone I have read in articulating why it is important to question and understand everything that went on. As always, you are an asset to your side. But part of that discussion does have to include what possibly would have happened had the police not acted as they did. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that this murderer could have escaped and killed again, or taken hostages and killed in the short term. I think the discussion would be more fruitful if those critiquing the police had been able to offer any alternatives as events unfolded. Many are still unable to today and almost two weeks has passed since Watertown.

(I understand that group does not include you -- you have been clear from the start that while you believe the discussion should take place you do not have any major problems with what was done. Feel free to correct me if my read on that is incorrect.)

no that is a pretty correct assessment.

As to what could have been done differently...I think we need to be careful when we assign causation of apprehension in this matter to the heavily armed military response. I think what most are saying and questioning is did it NEED to go as far as it did to reach the same outcome. Some people are quick to assume that the bombers would have escaped had it not happened the way it did...but few of those same folks are willing to consider that with less of an armed military response the same result could have happened. Look at the response I got, the author just assumed that another attack would have happened had the police not gone as far as they did. I am not willing to condemn the police actions like some, but I am certainly not willing to just assume everything they did was ok without review either.

I don't know if all we had was a normal police man hunt if they would have been caught...I think the police are very capable and have a little more faith in them to do their job correctly than most I would imagine. I think by doing what they did in community outreach and by making reasonable search areas they did a lot of things right. I don't know how they conducted the searches of people's homes but I think asking the question is a good thing to do. Asking someone to come in with an assault rifle on your hip is a little different than asking to come in to search without it there. Second guessing CAN be very helpful when done reasonably. I don't think anyone is calling for people's heads to roll here, at least I am not.

I am thankful for groups like the ACLU, Ron Paul, Bill Maher (hurts to type that one) and anyone else in the public eye who is willing to ask the question that many don't want asked, as ridiculous as they may seem to some, they are constantly watching for the line, constantly trying to force the gov't to define that line and I am glad there are those that do it so outspokenly.

Is it possible that that level of response could serve as notice to any future pontetial criminals who would wish to do something similar?

Just spitballing here.

JimmyV

mickeyrat wrote:

Is it possible that that level of response could serve as notice to any future pontetial criminals who would wish to do something similar?

Just spitballing here.

Yes, absolutely. But I think you could also make the case that someone could enjoy watching a major American city shut down, could see that as an accomplishment.

mickeyrat

JimmyV wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

Is it possible that that level of response could serve as notice to any future pontetial criminals who would wish to do something similar?

Just spitballing here.

Yes, absolutely. But I think you could also make the case that someone could enjoy watching a major American city shut down, could see that as an accomplishment.

I get that.

L.E. may not want to "celebrate" the capture too much. After all , ALL DAY, they searched and the guy was found just outside the search area by a civilian!! Smacks of ineptitude.

Betcha better contingency plans are in place now.

dimitrispearljam

RustyShackelford wrote:

And to the one who hails from GREECE, what in the hell is an AK-15? Is that the same as an AR-47?

kinda the same..its illigal here in Greece civilian has and carry any type of gun,even a knife bigger than 1.2 inches..we have elected goverment that pays the military to defend the country from foreign enemies and police to serve and protect the civilians inside the country..and its all we need to have.