Rand Paul

Roy Moore Says Kneeling for the Anthem Is Illegal, and He's Totally Wrong

Libertarian-leaning Republicans who endorsed Moore should hang their heads in shame

|

Moore
Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

Roy Moore, the Republican candidate currently running for Attorney General Jeff Sessions' old Alabama Senate seat, is very mixed up about free speech.

The former judge—who was twice removed from office for his conservative culture war agenda, contrary to the law—told TIME magazine that NFL players who kneel during the national anthem are actually breaking the law.

"It's against the law, you know that?" said Moore. "It was a act of Congress that every man stand and put their hand over their heart. That's the law."

It isn't. That's completely wrong, actually.

Moore is probably referring to a section of the U.S. code that recommends standing for the national anthem, removing headgear, and placing one's hand over one's heart. But the code does not require people to do this, and if it did, the Supreme Court would undoubtedly strike it down.

"It's not clear to me that 36 U.S.C. 301 was ever meant to be legally binding — it says what people 'should' do rather than what they 'shall' or 'must' do," Eugene Volokh, a University of California-Los Angeles law professor and blogger at The Washington Post, told CBS. "But if it did aim at being legally binding, the First Amendment would prevent it from being enforced."

The First Amendment extends free speech rights to all Americans. The government cannot compel people to salute the flag or stand for the national anthem—at school events, national football games, or anywhere else. That Moore wrongly believes otherwise is just one more reason to strenuously oppose his candidacy.

It's a terrible shame so many Republicans who claim to be libertarian-inclined—including Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee—have endorsed Moore, despite his genuinely awful views. In his endorsement, Paul claimed "we need more people in Washington, D.C .that will stand on principle and defend the Constitution." On this basis alone, Moore's contempt for the principles of the First Amendment are obviously disqualifying.

President Trump is already working overtime to undermine the Constitution's robust protections for freedom of speech. Sending a like-minded, theocratic mini-Trump to Congress to aid this cause seems like a terrible plan, and one self-described libertarians should vigorously oppose.

Advertisement

NEXT: Montana Dean Worried About 'the Risk of Offending Students,' Dis-Invites Conservative Speaker

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’s certainly losing my faith in him rather rapidly.

  2. Y’all can kneel in front of Diane Reynolds.

  3. Man those fucking GOPers sure wave that flag when things are looking grim for them. Watch out for when the entire Capitol building is draped in the world’s largest-ever flag; you can be sure Trump just got caught in bed with an underage hooker.

    1. +1 Harvey Weinstein in the Lincoln Bedroom.

      1. Nice album name.

      2. Seems like a relatively safe place to keep him.

        1. Where are you going to keep the women so they wil be safe from HW?

    2. The fear should be people accidentally bleeding out from injuries due to the ever increasing lapel flag.

      1. 15 pieces of flair is the minimum.

    3. “Man those fucking GOPers sure wave that flag when things are looking grim for them.”

      Well that’s one possible narrative. What’s the “grim looking” part here? Looks to me more like he’s getting attention for winning the primary and being a threat.

    4. “you can be sure Trump just got caught in bed with an underage hooker.”

      You lost, loser. And so did she.

      1. I wish he’d get caught in bed with a hooker. Maybe not an underage one. But a hooker might lead to some improvements in prostitution law if it happened to Trump.

  4. But the code does not require people to do this, and if it did, the Supreme Court would should undoubtedly strike it down.

    FTFY

    1. I’m pretty sure they would. They’ve been pretty good on stuff like that.

    2. They already have. States used to have laws that criminalized flag-desecration, and the court struck those down. There was a big ongoing stink over it. The Senate came within one vote of passing a constitutional amendment in 2006.

      1. Those cases also already discussed the federal flag code and commented on how it’s merely a non-binding suggestion.

  5. It’s always funny when people come out with shit like this because if you really take a good look at the flag code, things like flag themed clothing and bunting, draping yourself with a flag, and all kinds of other stuff that patriotic, flag waving Americans love are also violations.

    1. Including the lapel pin.

  6. I know its Alabamastan so it won’t happen but a Democratic win would sure go along way to my beloved gridlock in DC.

    1. We cannot have a dysfunctional, do-nothing congress!

        1. Why do you hate democracy?

          1. Oh but I think he prefers the popular vote.

      1. Of course we can.
        We’ve had one for over 200 years.
        Where have you been?

      2. We cannot have a dysfunctional, do-nothing congress!

        “We’ve gotta protect our phony baloney jobs!”

  7. “It’s against the law, you know that?” said Moore. “It was a act of Congress that every man stand and put their hand over their heart. That’s the law.
    Rand, I want to love you but you push me away. Sad.

    1. Yeah, Rand really fucked himself with this one.

      1. Yeah, Rand really fucked himself with this one.

        Nothing new. He’s the same fascist that called for nationwide tent revivals to deal with the grave threat od\f …
        marriage equality. (Admittedly not as sick as his dad on that.)

  8. It seems clear that Moore is attempting the Trump approach to politics: constantly say outrageous things that will get media in a tizzy and your name in the news. Then claim the media is biased, fake, etc. Will be interesting to see if anyone but Trump can pull it over.

  9. RE: Roy Moore Says Kneeling for the Anthem Is Illegal, and He’s Totally Wrong

    Moore is right.
    Peaceful, non-violent protest has always been wrong in this country.
    Civil disobedience is a sign of a sick country.
    You don’t see people kneeling in North Korea when their anthem is played now do you?

    1. Actually, you do. Right before they get a bullet in the back of their head.

  10. “Moore is probably referring”

    No need to say “probably,” Moore cited the statute during his interview with Time.

  11. Why does anyone even think kneeling for the Anthem is disrespectful? As a form of protest, kneeling is about as respectful as it gets. I can hardly think of a LESS disrespectful way for someone to express discontent with some sort of American policy or social situation.

    1. If it were inoffensive, they wouldn’t be doing it. They’re trying to call attention to themselves…oops, I mean call attention to their cause whatever it is…and that requires being shocking.

      1. Well, they chose a lame type of “shocking” and the fact that it’s considered so at all is baffling to me.

        1. Athletes have been doing it for several decades — during the anthem. Originally, and most frequently until now, by Olympic athletes. But you’ll never see that if all you know is Faux News, Breitbart, Alex Jones and the other hysteria mongers.

      2. They are doing it to call attention to themselves/their cause, that doesn’t mean it’s meant to be offensive or shocking. The kneel was meant to be a more respectful way of registering protest, compared to sitting on the bench.

        1. But when it turned out it was indeed offending people, they continued to do it.

          1. Now we’re concerned with the snowflakes’ feelings.

            1. I’m amused by their protestations that OMG why are people offended by our innocuous protest?

              1. I’m also amused at how offended the “why are you all so easily offended? Why do you try to get people fired for saying things you don’t like?” crowd is by football players kneeling before a game.

              2. Kneeling during a song is pretty innocuous. Why are the snowflakes so fucking sensitive?

                Jesus, you’d think most libertarians would have a natural revulsion to symbolic displays of communal worship.

                1. Kneeling during a song is pretty innocuous. Why are the snowflakes so fucking sensitive?

                  The Fox News snowflakes are THE most easily offended on the planet!

          2. But when it turned out it was indeed offending people, they continued to do it.

            That’s what free speech means! Even despite all the bullshit by Trump and the wacko right on what’s being protested. To their eagerly brainwashed puppets

            1. “We have a right to offend our paying customers!”

              Yeah, but it probably is not a good idea.

              1. Yeah, but it probably is not a good idea.

                Extreme socons have been doing it for decades. So have black athletes.

          3. Yeah the people who decided it was offensive are pretty much doing the same thing as campus snowflakes. OMG, you’re wearing a Sombrero? I have to go cry in my safe space!
            Anyone can take faux offense to anything they want. You can’t let them decide how other people are alllowed to express themselves.

        2. And when they stay in the locker room? They back there respectfully kneeling?

          I think it’s funny how they’re trying to make a nuanced argument in politics. Like anyone else ever is allowed to do that. The Civil war was for slavery. Your statue is for slavery. Your flag is for slavery. Your march is for white supremacy. Your criticism of antifa is equivocation supporting neo-nazis. No one cares why you say you do it.

          Oh but these athletes are gonna get away with making a narrow point that means only the narrow thing they want it to mean in front of football fans. Good luck with that guys.

          1. Didn’t they stay in the locker room because people were crying that players were kneeling on the field?

            It’s not really a narrow point. Certainly nowhere near as nuanced as ‘explanations’ for the southern secession or flying the flag of a government formed to defend slavery.

            1. It’s not really a narrow point. Certainly nowhere near as nuanced as ‘explanations’ for the southern secession or flying the flag of a government formed to defend slavery.

              Or at least that’s what you assert. You have a dog in this fight, eh?

              1. You have a dog in this fight, eh?

                The opposite of your own (crippled) dog..

    2. That’s ridiculous.

      The players are doing it because they refuse to respect the flag of a country that . . .

      If it isn’t disrespectful, it isn’t because they aren’t trying to be disrespectful.

      It’s amazing. The people who say there’s only one reason to have a statue of Robert E. Lee in public are some of the same people insisting there’s some other way to take disrespecting the flag . . .

      Somehow purposely disrespecting the flag isn’t disrespectful at all–and all the service members, military families, veterans, and first responders who take it as disrespectful are wrong to feel that way!!!

      LOL

      Statues of Robert E. Lee can only mean support for slavery, but when we’re pissing on the flag, it’s really just rain.

      1. These are good hills to die on.

        1. Die on?!

          You think shitting on the flag is popular in middle America?

          This judge certainly isn’t about to lose for sticking up for the flag, and if the Democrats succeed in making themselves the party of flag desecration, Trump will win reelection in a landslide.

          Are you one of these people who somehow imagines the flag is unpopular or that disrespecting it is?

          Die on a hill? If you want to see the country swing further to the right than it’s ever been before, keep disrespecting the flag a hot issue until 2020.

          1. I think no NFL player has ever shit on a flag.

            I think it is interesting that we can often agree that the us government systematically oppresses black people through economic and criminal policies but then we get offended when black people lash out symbolically at the US government.

            1. You’re talking about the way the world should be.

              I’m talking about people shitting on the flag and thinking that’s popular.

              P.S. NFL players don’t literally “talk shit” either. It’s a figure of speech like “shitting on” something.

              1. You’re talking about the way the world should be.

                In what way are we talking about the way the world should be? He’s saying we talk about this now, and that people are lashing out symbolically now. Those aren’t theoretical, and the conflict he mentioned is real.

              2. How does kneeling quietly during the National Anthem equal “shitting on the flag”?

                1. For the second time:

                  shit on
                  To diss, demoralize, put down, etc.

                  shit-ted on
                  shit-ting on
                  (to) shit on
                  50 Cent straight shitted on Ja Rule in his freestyle tape.

                  —-Urban Dictionary

                  http://tinyurl.com/ycltb2x4

                  1. Yeah sorry but that doesn’t answer the question. The question is how does quietly kneeling equal taking as shit on the American flag? If you want to exchange the word shit for diss, demoralize or put down then that’s fine. But you still have yet to explain how quietly kneeling means, shitting on, demoralizing or putting down the flag.

                    You’re argument (or lack of one) seems to be based on nothing more than emotional outrage. It reminds me of the college snowflakes who freak out over so-called microagressions.

                    Quietly kneeling while allowing others to stand with their hands over their heart or behind their back does not disrespect anything or anyone. The fact that we’ve gotten to the point now were the simple act of kneeling without saying anything is now outrageous is another symptom of just how stupid our political debates have become.

                    And who gives a shit about 50 Cent and Ja Rule?

                    1. “Yeah sorry but that doesn’t answer the question. The question is how does quietly kneeling equal taking as shit on the American flag?”

                      Again, people seem to be arguing that those who are being deliberately provocative aren’t doing so deliberately.

                      They’re doing this to be provocative. Deliberately extending one’s middle finger is considered provocative in our society, as well. When people do it deliberately and repeatedly, it’s absurd to ask why it’s considered provocative–and suggest there’s some doubt as to intent.

                      You know what’s considered appropriate behavior during the national anthem? Putting one’s hand on one’s heart–unless you’re in uniform. If you’re in uniform, you’re supposed to salute.

                      I think you’re being willfully obtuse.

                    2. Umm, nobody protests in a closet. Get it?

                    3. You were doing so well, Hihn! But you’ve just got to use another handle…

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/12…..nt_6652623

                      Uses 3 (!) different handles, also uses his Hihn handle to respond to himself? 3 days after no one other than he or I were posting anymore.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2017/01…..nt_6730841

                      Says precisely the same thing using 2 different handles. Begins with a quote of mine “If the child is a living human”.

                    4. Is your life so totally barren?

                    5. Have you destroyed your own name so completely that you need to use another’s?

                    6. Have you destroyed your own name so completely that you need to use another’s?

                      Bend over, stalker … jammied it up your ass AGAIN. (sneer)

                      https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..nt_7005010

                      (This is a second one)

                    7. P.S. The email directly below yours (when you posted THAT aggression) also proves you to be a cyber-bully (smirk)

                      https://reason.com/blog/2017/10…..nt_7003841

                    8. You seem to have an obsession with homosexual rape, Hihn. Maybe you should talk to someone about that.

                      Yes, follow the link, it will bring you to my reply! And perhaps you should check which handle you’re using before replying next time.

                      May the Lord bless you and keep you.
                      May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
                      and be gracious to you.
                      May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
                      and give you peace.

                    9. You seem to have an obsession with homosexual rape

                      That is NOT what I keep jamming up your ass, repeatedlty, chump.

                      Cyber-bully is stalking me for over a year …;for exposing his bullshit.

                    10. That is NOT what I keep jamming up your ass, repeatedlty, chump.

                      And what is that except homosexual rape?

                      Cyber-bully is stalking me for over a year

                      Telling you that you’re wrong isn’t “stalking”, nor “bullying”. Veritas Liberabit Vos.

                      I don’t like lies nor deceit.

                      May the Lord bless you and keep you.
                      May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
                      and be gracious to you.
                      May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
                      and give you peace.

          2. You think shitting on the flag is popular in middle America?

            Only hysterical goobers on the right say the flag has anything to do with it … the same racist goobers who deny or excuse the police abuse which IS the issues. Snowflakes of the tribal right.

      2. Kneeling in front of the flag is just like pissing on it, to Ken.

        1. The saying goes, “Don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining”.

          “Statues of Robert E. Lee can only mean support for slavery, but when we’re pissing on the flag, it’s really just rain.”

          That’s my accusation. They’re metaphorically pissing on the flag, and you’re trying to claim it’s just raining.

          1. Well, let me once again point out, that they are literally, factually, NOT pissing on the flag.
            You’re metaphorically saying they are pissing on the flag and claiming that the fact that they are factually NOT pissing on it, is some how denying the factual reality that they ARE pissing on it, even they are factually not.

            What form of protest do you think wouldn’t be offensive? Or are you inclined to believe that African Americans are somehow morally obligated to worship a flag of a country that they have some pretty fucking good reasons to not be all that patriotic about? Why are you intent on denying black people their lived experiences and mandating that they feel the same amount of patriotic fervor that you do?

            1. “Well, let me once again point out, that they are literally, factually, NOT pissing on the flag.
              You’re metaphorically saying they are pissing on the flag and claiming that the fact that they are factually NOT pissing on it, is some how denying the factual reality that they ARE pissing on it, even they are factually not.”

              Jesus Christ.

              Have you seriously never heard of an idiom before?

              “Categorized as formulaic language, an idiom’s figurative meaning is different from the literal meaning.[1] There are thousands of idioms, occurring frequently in all languages. It is estimated that there are at least twenty-five thousand idiomatic expressions in the English language.[2]

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom

              When someone says, “You have to get up pretty early in the morning to pull the wool over my eyes”, do you assume they think you’re trying to literally pull wool over their eyes?

              “Don’t piss on the flag and tell me it’s raining” is like that–based on a common idiom but almost a mixed metaphor. It was clever! Have you ever heard of a mixed metaphor before, or is this the first time?

              Have you been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome? One of the symptoms is not being able to understand common idioms.

              No, I didn’t literally “run to the store”.

              Are you being willfully obtuse?

              1. Have you seriously never heard of an idiom before?

                You spelled it wrong. You’re an “idiot.”

    3. There was one game where the players kneeled, but not during the anthem, and still got booed. It’s almost like the “respecting the flag” thing is just an excuse and what really angers conservatives is minorities daring to have an opinion.

      1. Remember how angry convervatives get at Clarence Thomas’ opinions and wish him to die of heart failure?

        Wait, no, that wasn’t conservatives…

        1. ..and that asshole made it to the Supreme Court. Moore is headed to the Senate.

          Sent there by liberals.

          Wait, no, that was the bigoted conservatives.

      2. How dare black people not be patriotic?
        I mean, really, what has America ever done to them?

    4. Because Drumpf told them.

  12. What, is this the new Sara Palin or something?

    Is he the reason Californians are going to vote even more Democrat next time–to stick it to some guy in Alabama?

    Why does it matter what Roy Moore says?

    1. Because he’s possibly going to have an input in making policy and laws that affect all of us?

    2. What, is this the new Sara Palin or something?

      He makes Palin look like Einstein. Or even intelligent.

  13. And don’t forget to stand during Benito Trump’s daily radio address, lest you be caught by the squadristi.

  14. I think it’s brave of Paul to support candidates with cognitive disabilities.

    1. They dwell on the same psycho farm.

  15. Before you go bad-mouthing Alabama on the assumption that only a state like Alabama could produce a State Supreme Court justice so pig-ignorant of the law and legal philosophy, take a good look at the stupidity that comes out of state-level courtrooms on a regular basis and weep. (I’m looking at you, Indiana, with your SC ruling that there’s no right to resist the police even when the police are committing a crime against you.)

    1. “(I’m looking at you, Indiana, with your SC ruling that there’s no right to resist the police even when the police are committing a crime against you.)”

      Hey…we have our moments, but we aren’t Ala-fucking-bama! The difference is when the decision you reference came down, we all were outraged. But in Alabama, we all kind of nod our head and understand it’s that kind of place.

  16. “President Trump is already working overtime to undermine the Constitution’s robust protections for freedom of speech. ”

    Except for the part where he has appointed staunch defenders of free speech.

    1. Except for the part where he has appointed staunch defenders of free speech.

      (laughing)
      He did say that he could commit murder in broad daylight, with witnesses, and not lose a single supporter.

  17. The Libertarian Moment all cucks fear has arrived.

    1. Yeah, only a cuck wouldn’t appreciate how libertarian a guy who thinks that kneeling before the flag is illegal, that gay sex should be illegal, and that members of a religion he doesn’t like shouldn’t be allowed in Congress is.

    2. “The Libertarian Moment all cucks fear has arrived.”

      And idiots show up with comments like this.
      If SIV were somewhat smarter, he’d be embarrassed.
      Well, a LOT smarter.

      1. Yes, but you Sevo are still a fucking moron. Now, keep sucking on Rand Paul’s cock.

  18. BTW, I’d like to quote from Roy Moore’s 2002 opinion in D.H. v. H.H.

    The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.

    This guy wants to straight up murder homosexuals.

    1. Ah, “Think of the Children.” The classic cry of those who don’t believe in personal volition.

  19. If Beauregard was qualified, this cretin could certainly replace him.

  20. Er well it’s against the recommendation of the law.

    You have a better source besides that amateur propaganda video on time.com?

  21. Fully endorsed by Rand Paul, reason.com libertarian!

  22. Has anyone asked Sens. Lee and Paul for comment on what this might mean for their endorsement? How does the Liberty Caucus respond to it?

  23. Actually, the worst of it is that, back home, his poll numbers went up because of this comment.

    You really can’t blame politicians for being frauds anymore, but you can blame us for voting them into office.

  24. Paul claimed “we need more people in Washington, D.C .that will stand on principle and defend the Constitution.”

    Fine, so how do we get his sorry ass out of there?

  25. But, you know. Roy Moore is totes libertarian dontcha know.

  26. But, you know. Roy Moore is totes libertarian dontcha know.

    Only to those who beleeb the Paulista Cult is libertarian .. which means the Klan and southern racists are libertarian!
    (and most of the alt-right)

    1. Hi, Hihn.

      Thanks for replying using your actual handle this time.

      Calling them a “cult” doesn’t help your argument (that Rand shouldn’t have supported this fool). I agree with your conclusion, but your arguments don’t help me arrive there.

      Also, your constant references to the Klan and racists while discussing the Pauls seems entirely unnecessary. Do you actually think they are racist in any way?

      1. Do you actually think they are racist in any way?

        I never said they were.
        Read it again. (snort)

        It’s a known fact for Ron. And they both use the KKK’s “states rights” ? which their cult of bobbleheads swallows as federalism!

        Pay attention, stalker.

        In 1957, Orval Faubus activated his state militia, armed force to keep 9 black kids from registering at Little Rock’s Central High. Eisenhower sent federal troops, to use force if necessary to defend the rights of 9 kids.

        Faubus caved, later claiming he was defending the citizens of Arkansas from an intrusive and over-reaching federal court. Ron Paul uses the identical argument today … against marriage equality. DUH

        Says SCOTUS has no power to defend fundamental rights of …. anyone … from abuse by state governments, which (he says) can have powers never delegated. The fucking fascist claims to be defending the 10th Amendment ? while REJECTING the 9th.

        His adoring cult swallows it whole — many to justify a theocratic state to impose their bigotry.

        Others — like you — REFUSE to denounce state denial of rights in areas like marriage equality – on the pathetic excuse that no force is being initiated! (That’s why you defend both the cult and your theocratic bigotry.)

        Ron even BRAGS that he sponsored a bill to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing appeals to DOMA ? which his cult of goobers also applauds.

        Shame on you.

        1. I never said they were.

          Then quit conflating the two. Your precise arguments could be used to say that libertarians are for protecting the KKK because we understand what free speech is.

          Ron Paul uses the identical argument today … against marriage equality.

          Saying that states (or people) should have authority over marriage would be consistent with the 10th, yes. In reality, to be consistent with the 9th, there would have to be no government, as all government will abuse its power. (Not to mention that government violates “rights” twice just by existing.)

          What should states have powers over? What isn’t within Federal purview (in your opinion)?

          Others — like you — REFUSE to denounce state denial of rights in areas like marriage equality

          I denounce all government, completely and without hesitation. When I say that states (or people) have authority over marriage, I mean that the Feds don’t have it, per the 10th. I’m arguing Constititionally. As the Constitution has little to do with libertarianism, it’s a mere procedural fact!

          Ron even BRAGS that he sponsored a bill to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing appeals to DOMA

          The SCOTUS is evil; there isn’t even an argument to be made otherwise. Whether the legislature or executive are “better” (less evil), I don’t even care to think about.

          May the Lord bless you and keep you.
          May the Lord make his face to shine upon you!

          1. PROOF!!!.

            Do you actually think they are racist in any way?

            I never said they were.
            Read it again. (snort)

            Then quit conflating the two.

            READ IT AGAIN (snort)

            Your precise arguments could be used to say that libertarians are for protecting the KKK because we understand what free speech is.

            THIS IS WHAT THE CULT FOLLOWER *EXCUSES* IN RON PAUL

            Says SCOTUS has no power to defend fundamental rights of …. anyone … from abuse by state governments, which (he says) can have powers never delegated. The fucking fascist claims to be defending the 10th Amendment ? while REJECTING the 9th.

            His adoring cult swallows it whole — many to justify a theocratic state to impose their bigotry.

            Others — like you — REFUSE to denounce state denial of rights in areas like marriage equality – on the pathetic excuse that no force is being initiated! (That’s why you defend both the cult and your theocratic bigotry.)

            Ron even BRAGS that he sponsored a bill to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing appeals to DOMA ? which his cult of goobers also applauds.

            Shame on you.

            Thanks for SHOWING how stupid your cult is!. And how EAGERLY you are manipulated.

            As long as government IS in marriage — EQUAL RIGHTS ARE MANDATED. IT’S NOT AN EXCUSE TO IMPOSE YOUR RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY … WHILE CLAIMING TO BE AN ANARCHIST! (OMG)

            Ron Paul is an enabler of psychos like you,

            1. PROOF!!!.

              Of what? I asked you if you thought they were racist. I didn’t accuse you of calling them racist, I asked a question as to why you keep bringing up racists along with their names.

              THIS IS WHAT THE CULT FOLLOWER *EXCUSES* IN RON PAUL

              (After this he attempts deceit, knowingly or not, by “quoting” something I didn’t say. Check it out, I didn’t say that.)

              The fucking fascist claims to be defending the 10th Amendment ? while REJECTING the 9th.

              No, I simply pointed out what a sensical reading of the 10th would be, that the Feds don’t have that power, the states or the people would. Of course a sensical reading of the 9th would preclude government from existing as it twice violates the right to do all but initiate force. And getting rid of government is fine with me.

              Others — like you — REFUSE to denounce state denial of rights in areas like marriage equality

              I denounce it, along with all other governmental acts. Stop lying!

              Thanks for SHOWING how stupid your cult is!

              Helpful terminology, Hihn.

              As long as government IS in marriage — EQUAL RIGHTS ARE MANDATED.

              As long as government is in anything, “rights” are impossible, definitionally so.

              IT’S NOT AN EXCUSE TO IMPOSE YOUR RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY … WHILE CLAIMING TO BE AN ANARCHIST!

              I don’t impose religion on anyone. I am an anarchist.

    2. There’s not like some diverse multiracial branch of libertarianism.

      1. Anyone can oppose initiations of force. We don’t have quotas.

        1. (lol) TOTALLY off-topic.

          1. As you have no idea what “libertarianism” means, I’m not shocked you think that’s off-topic.

            Don’t make me prove you don’t know how words work, Hihn.

            God Bless you!

            1. THE FUCKING OPIC IS MULTIRACIALISM withIN libertarianism … NOT FORCE … BBut any excuse for more aggression … and more dumbass trolling.

              NOBODY is surprised that you “have no idea” on the percentage a blacks in the movement. … AND DON’T EVEN GIVE A SHIT .. like the rest of your racist cult

              As Christ weeps in silent shame, blasphemer.

              1. OPIC=TOPIC
                But he could fuck that up too!

              2. MULTIRACIALISM withIN libertarianism … NOT FORCE

                Libertarianism = refusal to initiate force. Anything to do with libertarianism has to do with initiations of force by definition, Hihn.

                NOBODY is surprised that you “have no idea” on the percentage a blacks in the movement.

                Lower than the population % would suggest. Still, there is nothing stopping them or anyone else.

                As Christ weeps in silent shame, blasphemer.

                You know why I Bless you?
                “Bless those who persecute you. Don’t curse them; pray that God will bless them.” Romans 12:14

                You know why I am kind to you regardless of your behavior to me?
                “If your enemies are hungry, feed them.
                If they are thirsty, give them something to drink.
                In doing this, you will heap
                burning coals of shame on their heads.” Proverbs 25:21-22

                So I will continue to obey my Father. Continue to follow your own way, Hihn.

                May the Lord bless you and keep you.
                May the Lord make his face to shine upon you,
                and be gracious to you.
                May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
                and give you peace.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.