Ron Paul says the media could be next on the hit list

MRRiley · 10-06-2011, 03:43 AM

Ron Paul has always been on his own particular edge and I actually agree with some of his positions... but he's really gone around the bend with his objections to the killing of al Awlaki. Now in order to stir up fear he is telling the media that they could be next.

First Read - Ron Paul suggests media could be targeted by government

Possible? well yeah, dang near anything is possible... Likely? hardly...

Mike

Wheatfield · 10-06-2011, 04:18 AM

Some of us like taking things to the absurd extreme.
However, he is right in that once a door has been opened......

wildman · 10-06-2011, 04:34 AM

"Can you imagine being put on a list because you're a threat? What's going to happen when they come to the media?" Paul asked during an appearance at the National Press Club. "The media becomes a threat or a professor becomes a threat. Some day that could well happen. This is the way it works. It's incrementalism."

And he is logically correct.

But what he ignores is that any human endeavor can fall victim to "incrementalism" or, as I prefer, the slippery slope argument.

I don't see him speaking out against, for instance, the possibility that with the elimination of all restraints on capital that this may eventually lead to states totally under the thumb of narrow commercial interests. Just another possible example of his "incrementalism".

So what else is new? This kind of thinking I find so shallow, simple and dull.

Nesster · 10-06-2011, 06:23 AM

Hasn't this sort of thing happened already, and repeatedly so? I think back to the most obvious examples, Nixon's Enemies list, McCarthy's Red scare, and Hoover's FBI.

And the slippery slope? There's a huge difference between a free-press pest and a terrorist who is effectively an enemy of all governments... Someone who writes about uncomfortable truths and someone who plots and carries out terrorist acts, killing people in the process.

Along the same lines, we might say that there's a slippery slope between shoplifting and mass murder: as soon as we say mass murderers deserve the death penalty, aren't shoplifters the next logical target?

GeneV · 10-06-2011, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by wildman

"Can you imagine being put on a list because you're a threat? What's going to happen when they come to the media?" Paul asked during an appearance at the National Press Club. "The media becomes a threat or a professor becomes a threat. Some day that could well happen. This is the way it works. It's incrementalism."

And he is logically correct.

But what he ignores is that any human endeavor can fall victim to "incrementalism" or, as I prefer, the slippery slope argument.

I don't see him speaking out against, for instance, the possibility that with the elimination of all restraints on capital that this may eventually lead to states totally under the thumb of narrow commercial interests. Just another possible example of his "incrementalism".

So what else is new? This kind of thinking I find so shallow, simple and dull.

True. It is a bit like saying that if a government agent had dumped Jim Jones' container of cyanide-laced Kool-Aid, the next step would have been banning soft drinks.

(Well, I'm not sure he is even logically correct. Slippery Slope is often considered a fallacy)

jogiba · 10-06-2011, 06:44 AM

Ron Paul is another idiot from Texas like Ross Perot .

Quote:

Perot's paranoia is pretty well known, due to his announcement in 1992 that he was quitting the presidential race (in which he was a very strong contender) because Republican's were planning to disrupt his daughters wedding (by forging photos of phony lesbian sex.) But it has long been typical of him.

He thinks he lost his 1993 debate to Al Gore because Gore had a hidden earpiece, through which he was being fed answers, or possibly questions. (Posner, p330). While he was serving on a Texas anti-drug commission in the early 1980s, he became convinced that Charles Harrelson (the father of actor Woody Harrelson, from "Cheers") had been hired to kill him by drug dealers. (The elder Harrelson is in fact a career criminal doing time for killing a federal judge.) The FBI dismissed his fears as baseless.

In 1992, Perot claimed that the North Vietnamese government had hired the Black Panthers to assasinate him, back in 1970, because of his efforts on behalf of POWs. He even said that "one night they had five people coming across my front lawn with rifles", and that a guard dog bit a big piece out of one attacker's butt.

However, Harold Birkhead, the man who ran security (including the dogs) at Perot's house at the time, says he never saw or heard about anything like that. And Paul McCaghren, who headed Dallas police intelligence in 1970, also dismisses the notion. "... it did not happen. There were only about 8 people here [in Dallas] that belonged to the Black Panther party. Two of those people worked for us, and they told us every day what was happening." (Posner, p66)

Just before Perot's 1993 debate with Gore, he announced that the FBI had alerted him that a six-member Cuban hit squad had been sent to murder him. "The organization is a Mafia-like group in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement", Perot claimed. (Posner, p327-8) The FBI had told him about an anonymous tip that he would be assassinated, but public figures get weird threat calls all the time. What is striking is that Perot believed the claim, embellished it and announced it publicly.

Presidential Candidate H. Ross Perot - The Dark Side

wildman · 10-06-2011, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Well, I'm not sure he is even logically correct.

Perhaps.
But you would have a hell of a time arguing as a prior probability that a state enemies list of journalist and academics could not happen.

Last edited by wildman; 10-06-2011 at 07:58 AM.

GeneV · 10-06-2011, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by wildman

Perhaps.
But you would have a hell of a time arguing as a prior probability that a government enemies list of journalist and academics could not happen.

Well, "could not" is a pretty low standard, so I'd have to agree. I could win the lottery.

wildman · 10-06-2011, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

could not" is a pretty low standard

Exactly.

And that is the even lower standard Paul implies -"Can you imagine being put on a list because you're a threat?" and "What's going to happen when they come to the media?".

Paul is smarter than that. He must know he is talking humbug.

It sounds stuffy and old fashioned but to me these people have no honor.

Nesster · 10-06-2011, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Nesster

Nixon's Enemies list, McCarthy's Red scare, and Hoover's FBI.

note that it has happened several times

MRRiley · 10-06-2011, 08:33 AM

What Ron Paul was talking about was media members being summarily executed for their activities... Sure, the government has (and has had) all kinds of lists of undesirable characters or enemies (can anyone say NO FLY LIST?). I'm sure George Dubya had several other large lists... But seldom if ever have any of those lists led to court sanctioned executions absent real evidence of serious crimes against the country, much less summary executions like al Awlaki.

BillM · 10-06-2011, 08:42 AM

One only has to consider Rupert Murdock to realize press/media is beyond reproach.
There are some glaring examples listed in this thread of governmental abuses.
Press/media salient in righting wrongs. Irreplaceable.
Above all else though,I have to consider the source.
incrementalism? No
Patronage? When's the election now?

shooz · 10-06-2011, 08:48 AM

It's not always necessary to kill them.

Where's Bradley Manning?

reeftool · 10-06-2011, 11:50 AM

The idea that a few unknown people in govt. can decide an American citizen deserves a death sentence and then carry it is scarier to me than al-Qaeda. Ron Paul is 100% right to bring this issue out in the open. How many court decisions are decided on legal precedence? To set a precedent and allow this to continue could become everyone's worse nightmare in a few years.

Chwisch87 · 10-06-2011, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by shooz

It's not always necessary to kill them.

Where's Bradley Manning?

EXACTLY.

I remember an influential quote. Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.

What Ron Paul is saying is already happening. The Al Jazeera journalist Sami al-Haj who spent seven years in gitmo with NO CHARGES. He claims he was tortured as well. Bradley Manning is locked up without charge for showing the world the illegal activities the US was doing.

I don't care what you say, the US gov't executed a US citizen without a trial. If he is guilty of treason, bring him into court and prove it to a jury of his peers. HE IS ENTITLED TO THAT.

Btw assassination is an international war crime.

10-06-2011, 03:43 AM	#1
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Ron Paul says the media could be next on the hit list Ron Paul has always been on his own particular edge and I actually agree with some of his positions... but he's really gone around the bend with his objections to the killing of al Awlaki. Now in order to stir up fear he is telling the media that they could be next. First Read - Ron Paul suggests media could be targeted by government Possible? well yeah, dang near anything is possible... Likely? hardly... Mike

10-06-2011, 06:43 AM	#5
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by wildman "Can you imagine being put on a list because you're a threat? What's going to happen when they come to the media?" Paul asked during an appearance at the National Press Club. "The media becomes a threat or a professor becomes a threat. Some day that could well happen. This is the way it works. It's incrementalism." And he is logically correct. But what he ignores is that any human endeavor can fall victim to "incrementalism" or, as I prefer, the slippery slope argument. I don't see him speaking out against, for instance, the possibility that with the elimination of all restraints on capital that this may eventually lead to states totally under the thumb of narrow commercial interests. Just another possible example of his "incrementalism". So what else is new? This kind of thinking I find so shallow, simple and dull. True. It is a bit like saying that if a government agent had dumped Jim Jones' container of cyanide-laced Kool-Aid, the next step would have been banning soft drinks. (Well, I'm not sure he is even logically correct. Slippery Slope is often considered a fallacy) Last edited by GeneV; 10-06-2011 at 07:29 AM.

10-06-2011, 06:44 AM	#6
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Ron Paul= Ross Perot 2 Ron Paul is another idiot from Texas like Ross Perot . Quote: Perot's paranoia is pretty well known, due to his announcement in 1992 that he was quitting the presidential race (in which he was a very strong contender) because Republican's were planning to disrupt his daughters wedding (by forging photos of phony lesbian sex.) But it has long been typical of him. He thinks he lost his 1993 debate to Al Gore because Gore had a hidden earpiece, through which he was being fed answers, or possibly questions. (Posner, p330). While he was serving on a Texas anti-drug commission in the early 1980s, he became convinced that Charles Harrelson (the father of actor Woody Harrelson, from "Cheers") had been hired to kill him by drug dealers. (The elder Harrelson is in fact a career criminal doing time for killing a federal judge.) The FBI dismissed his fears as baseless. In 1992, Perot claimed that the North Vietnamese government had hired the Black Panthers to assasinate him, back in 1970, because of his efforts on behalf of POWs. He even said that "one night they had five people coming across my front lawn with rifles", and that a guard dog bit a big piece out of one attacker's butt. However, Harold Birkhead, the man who ran security (including the dogs) at Perot's house at the time, says he never saw or heard about anything like that. And Paul McCaghren, who headed Dallas police intelligence in 1970, also dismisses the notion. "... it did not happen. There were only about 8 people here [in Dallas] that belonged to the Black Panther party. Two of those people worked for us, and they told us every day what was happening." (Posner, p66) Just before Perot's 1993 debate with Gore, he announced that the FBI had alerted him that a six-member Cuban hit squad had been sent to murder him. "The organization is a Mafia-like group in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement", Perot claimed. (Posner, p327-8) The FBI had told him about an anonymous tip that he would be assassinated, but public figures get weird threat calls all the time. What is striking is that Perot believed the claim, embellished it and announced it publicly. Presidential Candidate H. Ross Perot - The Dark Side

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ron Paul and Mike ;)	jeffkrol	General Talk	0	09-09-2011 01:44 PM
Ron Paul Media Blackout	mikemike	General Talk	95	09-04-2011 07:33 AM
Ron Paul Crackpot or Contender?	mikemike	General Talk	32	05-18-2011 05:46 AM
Ron Paul and Ralph Nader join forces	GeneV	General Talk	4	01-27-2011 09:51 AM
Ron Paul aka "von Mises jr" in the house	jeffkrol	General Talk	7	12-12-2010 09:37 AM

10-06-2011, 04:18 AM	#2
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Some of us like taking things to the absurd extreme. However, he is right in that once a door has been opened......

10-06-2011, 04:34 AM	#3
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	"Can you imagine being put on a list because you're a threat? What's going to happen when they come to the media?" Paul asked during an appearance at the National Press Club. "The media becomes a threat or a professor becomes a threat. Some day that could well happen. This is the way it works. It's incrementalism." And he is logically correct. But what he ignores is that any human endeavor can fall victim to "incrementalism" or, as I prefer, the slippery slope argument. I don't see him speaking out against, for instance, the possibility that with the elimination of all restraints on capital that this may eventually lead to states totally under the thumb of narrow commercial interests. Just another possible example of his "incrementalism". So what else is new? This kind of thinking I find so shallow, simple and dull.

10-06-2011, 06:23 AM	#4
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Hasn't this sort of thing happened already, and repeatedly so? I think back to the most obvious examples, Nixon's Enemies list, McCarthy's Red scare, and Hoover's FBI. And the slippery slope? There's a huge difference between a free-press pest and a terrorist who is effectively an enemy of all governments... Someone who writes about uncomfortable truths and someone who plots and carries out terrorist acts, killing people in the process. Along the same lines, we might say that there's a slippery slope between shoplifting and mass murder: as soon as we say mass murderers deserve the death penalty, aren't shoplifters the next logical target?

10-06-2011, 07:43 AM	#7
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by GeneV Well, I'm not sure he is even logically correct. Perhaps. But you would have a hell of a time arguing as a prior probability that a state enemies list of journalist and academics could not happen. Last edited by wildman; 10-06-2011 at 07:58 AM.

10-06-2011, 07:48 AM	#8
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by wildman Perhaps. But you would have a hell of a time arguing as a prior probability that a government enemies list of journalist and academics could not happen. Well, "could not" is a pretty low standard, so I'd have to agree. I could win the lottery.

10-06-2011, 08:06 AM	#9
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by GeneV could not" is a pretty low standard Exactly. And that is the even lower standard Paul implies -"Can you imagine being put on a list because you're a threat?" and "What's going to happen when they come to the media?". Paul is smarter than that. He must know he is talking humbug. It sounds stuffy and old fashioned but to me these people have no honor.

10-06-2011, 08:11 AM	#10
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by Nesster Nixon's Enemies list, McCarthy's Red scare, and Hoover's FBI. note that it has happened several times

10-06-2011, 08:33 AM	#11
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275 Original Poster	What Ron Paul was talking about was media members being summarily executed for their activities... Sure, the government has (and has had) all kinds of lists of undesirable characters or enemies (can anyone say NO FLY LIST?). I'm sure George Dubya had several other large lists... But seldom if ever have any of those lists led to court sanctioned executions absent real evidence of serious crimes against the country, much less summary executions like al Awlaki.

10-06-2011, 08:42 AM	#12
BillM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ferguson, Mo. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,348	One only has to consider Rupert Murdock to realize press/media is beyond reproach. There are some glaring examples listed in this thread of governmental abuses. Press/media salient in righting wrongs. Irreplaceable. Above all else though,I have to consider the source. incrementalism? No Patronage? When's the election now?

10-06-2011, 08:48 AM	#13
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	It's not always necessary to kill them. Where's Bradley Manning?

10-06-2011, 11:50 AM	#14
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,554	The idea that a few unknown people in govt. can decide an American citizen deserves a death sentence and then carry it is scarier to me than al-Qaeda. Ron Paul is 100% right to bring this issue out in the open. How many court decisions are decided on legal precedence? To set a precedent and allow this to continue could become everyone's worse nightmare in a few years.

10-06-2011, 12:13 PM	#15
Chwisch87 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Atlanta, GA Photos: Gallery Posts: 317	Originally posted by shooz It's not always necessary to kill them. Where's Bradley Manning? EXACTLY. I remember an influential quote. Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. What Ron Paul is saying is already happening. The Al Jazeera journalist Sami al-Haj who spent seven years in gitmo with NO CHARGES. He claims he was tortured as well. Bradley Manning is locked up without charge for showing the world the illegal activities the US was doing. I don't care what you say, the US gov't executed a US citizen without a trial. If he is guilty of treason, bring him into court and prove it to a jury of his peers. HE IS ENTITLED TO THAT. Btw assassination is an international war crime.