Comment: Thank you for this return

(See in situ)


Cyril's picture

Thank you for this return

... And elaboration of your point.

However.

I still really fail to see the soundness of your reasoning.

I'm sorry, but aren't you victim of your own fallacy, there?

Let me explain.

Have I ever defended freedom of speech here or there, concretely, by my legal acts alone? Probably never. Have I spoken out in its defense? Uncountably many times, like many others.

What have you done? What is your voting record as a people's representative on those? Now, compare with Ron Paul and decide if that would be consistent with YOUR claim of what YOU interpret what was his actual intent.

Second. You write about you not being mainstream, but your own self of a voice. Fair enough, then I guess nobody has to fear your influence. That's what you imply, right?

But then you continue with... this quote on the rationale of the bill of rights, about dissenters to protect when they express their critical minorities views... Absolutely!

Question, though : where did you see a "critical minority view to protect", there? So, Ron Paul was already omnipotent power most likely to oppress it, too?

Funny, I didn't notice Ron Paul had already been enjoying a cozy tyran seat for years anywhere... On the contrary, I have rather the impression he HAD CONSISTENTLY been the minority, that the establishment has taken great care of shutting off, of hiding his voice from the people.

I would maybe be willing to debate on the modality of Ron Paul's own DEFENSE, though I am no lawyer.. We wouldn't go far I suppose.

But the conclusion you draw from a so called underlying intent of Ron Paul to deny someone's right of free speech is just downright ... EXTRAVAGANT.

If you want to do some complementary research, I suggest you Google this Youtube video where a CNN anchor openly questions Ron Paul's right to choose and endorse his OWN campaign ads...

... Just because, some (guess who) do not like them.

Don't you know that in a civilized society it is not so much about the freedom that the law or a judge HAVE to protect, by duty, as it is about the Freedom ALREADY taken for granted AND accepted by all, with no need for the force of law?

So, that woman's unbelievable question ... How's that for intolerance? She just assumed normal to ask Ron Paul to just stop doing the communication he wants about his opponents. Precious video for you to see on the topic, I suppose.

How would you react if I'd say to you: well, though you don't break any rule, you have to stop posting here because I don't like it?

The moderators wouldn't move a finger. They'd just comply with me. Pretending they didn't see anything.

Don't you think I'd be more likely to be the one in power, there?

Don't you find THAT more worrying? Because if everybody else would think like me, well, we don't even NEED the law to shut you up : it's not your right denied, its the very existence or relevance of the right itself!

I seriously doubt Ron Paul decided lightly to invoke the best law he could find in context to defend his image.

You studied the court case, fine.

Don't forget it has a context.

Ron Paul has better to do with his time than "attack" complete stranger for no valid reason... When he could handle FOR YEARS the "RP is unelectable" baloney.

Thoughts?

Sincerely,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius