Ron Paul defends WikiLeaks on the House Floor

witness23 · Dec 10, 2010

Since I brought up corruption in another thread and Ron Paul in another thread, I would like to say this, "In my opinion, I think this guy is the least corrupt person in Washington, for that reason alone he should be our next President of these United States of America."

****Attention*****

As the author of this thread I hereby announce; if any member would like to bring up another thread, another member, another member's comments from another thread into this thread, you have my permission.

link: Ron Paul Defends WikiLeaks On House Floor | Ron Paul Speech on Julian Assange | Video | Mediaite

Ron Paul’s Passionate Defense Of Julian Assange And WikiLeaks On House Floor

Ron Paul is nothing if not an conservative iconoclast. The Texas Republican House Representative, with deep libertarian roots is taking a counter-intuitive departure from the traditional and established GOP rhetoric on the issue of WikiLeaks. In an impassioned speech on the U.S. House floor, Paul likened the attack on Julian Assange to “killing the messenger for bringing bad news” before providing nine provocative questions for Americans to consider.
Mr. Paul concluded his speech with a list of questions for the American citizens to consider, the transcript of which is below (via FromTheOld.)

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

greg334 · Dec 10, 2010

Well even if he the least corrupted person in Congress, he still had to sell his principles to get where he is at because that is what is needed to be in politics.

witness23 · Dec 11, 2010

greg334 said:
Well even if he the least corrupted person in Congress, he still had to sell his principles to get where he is at because that is what is needed to be in politics.

If you will, what principles did he sell in your opinion?

RLENT · Dec 11, 2010

witness23 said:
If you will, what principles did he sell in your opinion?

A good question, no doubt .... but really before you even get to that point, you have to vet the person you are asking it of, to see if he's really qualified to answer based on some sort of actual knowledge - so I'd suggest the following as a couple of questions just for starters:

1. Do you actually personally know Ron Paul, and on what basis, or how well, do you know him ?

2. How long have you personally known him ?

My guess is that you will find that the answer to above would be in the negative for no. 1, which would render no. 2 moot or irrelevant.

Finally, as a last comment about the post which you are asking for elaboration on, let me just say this:

I find such a view, to be utterly apathetic as regards the "because that is what is needed to be in politics" ...... simply because something is a certain way, doesn't mean that it has to be that way .....

And BTW, the opinion that you are questioning, given that it is in regards to Ron Paul, tells you the answer to the first question I posed above: No, he doesn't actually know Ron Paul.

witness23 · Dec 11, 2010

RLENT said:
A good question, no doubt .... but really before you even get to that point, you have to vet the person you are asking it of, to see if he's really qualified to answer based on some sort of actual knowledge - so I'd suggest the following as a couple of questions just for starters:

1. Do you actually personally know Ron Paul, and on what basis, or how well, do you know him ?

2. How long have you personally known him ?

My guess is that you will find that the answer to above would be in the negative for no. 1, which would render no. 2 moot or irrelevant.

Finally, as a last comment about the post which you are asking for elaboration on, let me just say this:

I find such a view, to be utterly apathetic as regards the "because that is what is needed to be in politics" ...... simply because something is a certain way, doesn't mean that it has to be that way .....

And BTW, the opinion that you are questioning, given that it is in regards to Ron Paul, tells you the answer to the first question I posed above: No, he doesn't actually know Ron Paul.

Yes, that would be logical, especially after making a comment as strong as the one he did. But I'll just take his opinion on how Mr. Paul sold his principles anyway.

RLENT · Dec 11, 2010

witness23 said:
Yes, that would be logical, especially after making a comment as strong as the one he did. But I'll just take his opinion on how Mr. Paul sold his principles anyway.

By all means

.....

I'm quite looking forward to hearing the reply myself ... hopefully it will be something a little more substantive than a pile of disjointed thoughts ...... that do little more than condemn Dr. Paul simply on the basis of having a disagreement with him on policy matters.

You know - some "real meat and potatoes" ....

Greg,

How come you haven't replied yet ? ..... I mean it's been almost A WHOLE 2 HOURS !

witness23 · Dec 12, 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg334
Well even if he the least corrupted person in Congress, he still had to sell his principles to get where he is at because that is what is needed to be in politics.

witness23 said:
If you will, what principles did he sell in your opinion?

Greg, I truly am interested in what principles you think he has sold. Anything?

greg334 · Dec 12, 2010

RLENT said:
Greg,

How come you haven't replied yet ? ..... I mean it's been almost A WHOLE 2 HOURS !

Well crap, I have been doing more important things than sitting here reading about wikileaks and frickn' banter/no banter/pickles debate threads.

Well it is obvious to you great philosophers, isn't it.

ANY politician has to deal with a number of issues in order to get (re)elected and they don't or can't stand true to all of their stated positions on the issues that drive the campaign.

Maybe principles was the wrong word but who really cares?

His principles may be pretty much intact but regardless if one is compromised they all seem to be open to be compromised by the very nature of politics. As far as I'm concern he has been and will always be suspect because he is a career politician so no matter how much in line I am with his positions on many issues, I view him just about the same as say my representative.

No matter how you present anyone in Washington, Politicians can't be trusted.

witness23 · Dec 13, 2010

greg334 said:
Well crap, I have been doing more important things than sitting here reading about wikileaks and frickn' banter/no banter/pickles debate threads.

Well it is obvious to you great philosophers, isn't it.

ANY politician has to deal with a number of issues in order to get (re)elected and they don't or can't stand true to all of their stated positions on the issues that drive the campaign.

Maybe principles was the wrong word but who really cares?

His principles may be pretty much intact but regardless if one is compromised they all seem to be open to be compromised by the very nature of politics. As far as I'm concern he has been and will always be suspect because he is a career politician so no matter how much in line I am with his positions on many issues, I view him just about the same as say my representative.

No matter how you present anyone in Washington, Politicians can't be trusted.