Ron Paul 2008 Presidential bid...

[Chaossaber314]

Meanwhile, back at the specific questions you were unable to answer...

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Meanwhile, back at the specific questions you were unable to answer...

I didn't say "unable to answer", what I said was, in my quick scan of posts on the site I was unable to find a specific mention of the specific police agencies cited.

In any case, your closed mind shut down on the second sentence of something that I was able to link to, more than once, mention of Jefferson's quotation about alliances and trade. Paul, himself, cited that quotation several times in his own speeches and articles. Seems to me that he would agree with my use of that in regards to his position.

Now, would you care to pay attention to the discussion, open your mind, and realize that big government isn't necessarily the answer, in fact, it's usually the problem.

The feudal lords of midieval Europe felt that the sovereign authorities, alone, had all the answers. How is your approach anything new?

Most that support big government as the "latest and greatest" answer to all the world's problems are actually taking an approach that has been around for thousands of years. The concept of freedom and individual sovereignity is the new answer, and it hasn't really even been seriously tried yet.

Keith

[Bob652]

Quote by: notworthabean I believe ron paul also believes 9/11 was a hoax, he has low name recognation, low funding etc etc aka he has nil chance.

Whether he has a chance or not he would still have my vote. At least I will be able to live with a clear conscience. The survival of our constitutional republic is at stake, and in greater danger than at any other time in American history.. We are heading toward a socialist-fascist, totalitarian 21st century form of feudalism; and Ron Paul seems to be one of the only politicians who has the balls to at least attempt to expose the truth that most other politicians have been subserviently wined and dined into denying.
I would rather vote for and man that might not win, than for the traitorous, leftest cons, neo-cons, and zion-cons who would sell our blood,natural rights and national sovereignty to the highest bidder.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger I didn't say "unable to answer", what I said was, in my quick scan of posts on the site I was unable to find a specific mention of the specific police agencies cited. In any case, your closed mind shut down on the second sentence of something that I was able to link to, more than once, mention of Jefferson's quotation about alliances and trade. Paul, himself, cited that quotation several times in his own speeches and articles. Seems to me that he would agree with my use of that in regards to his position. Now, would you care to pay attention to the discussion, open your mind, and realize that big government isn't necessarily the answer, in fact, it's usually the problem. The feudal lords of midieval Europe felt that the sovereign authorities, alone, had all the answers. How is your approach anything new? Most that support big government as the "latest and greatest" answer to all the world's problems are actually taking an approach that has been around for thousands of years. The concept of freedom and individual sovereignity is the new answer, and it hasn't really even been seriously tried yet. Keith

Not everything Thomas Jefferson said or did has become a part our national way of thinking. If so, we would all be fathering children with our black slave girls. We would all be hemp farmers. And we would all end up poor as a churchmouse, like Jefferson did, for not paying our bills on time. By the way they were going to bring him up on 'moral charges' but he resigned his roles in politcs before that could happen. But I guess some Ameircans have lived up to some of those standards.

He did a lot of good things in those pioneering days also, but he was not a perfect super role model in respect to everything he thought or did.

And so I can see Thomas and his 14 year old slave girl smoking some of his hemp from his slave farm, after having a little sex with her he no doubt got high and then thought up all those wonderful sayings that Ron Paul is so proud of. Yep. America in the making. While his real wife tried to ignore the whole affair.

However true history is not as partiotic as the school version is.

[Bob652]

Quote by: Technosoul Not everything Thomas Jefferson said or did has become a part our national way of thinking. If so, we would all be fathering children with our black slave girls. We would all be hemp farmers. And we would all end up poor as a churchmouse, like Jefferson did, for not paying our bills on time. By the way they were going to bring him up on 'moral charges' but he resigned his roles in politcs before that could happen. He did a lot of good things in those pioneering days also, but he was not a perfect super role model in respect to everything he thought or did. And so I can see Thomas and his 14 year old slave girl smoking some his hemp from his slave farm, after having a little sex with her he no doubt got high and then thought up all those wonderful sayings that Ron Paul is so proud of. Yep. America in the making. While his real wife tried to ignore the whole affair.

I suppose looking for the perfect person is a bit difficult since that person does not exist. I don't consider myself any better or worse than the average person, but we "all fall short of the glory of God"
In my opinion, Thomas Jefferson, with faults and weaknesses common to man, is still a super hero whose courageous, deeds, contributions, and assertions of the natural rights and self ownership of man have echoed in the ears of freedom loving individuals not only in The US but throughout the world.
I don't believe that his sexual activities, financial problems, or the cultural norms of his day detract in any way from his political and philosophical accomplishments or relevance to 21st century America. In fact I think we need to heed his advice now more than ever before.

[Bob652]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger I didn't say "unable to answer", what I said was, in my quick scan of posts on the site I was unable to find a specific mention of the specific police agencies cited. In any case, your closed mind shut down on the second sentence of something that I was able to link to, more than once, mention of Jefferson's quotation about alliances and trade. Paul, himself, cited that quotation several times in his own speeches and articles. Seems to me that he would agree with my use of that in regards to his position. Now, would you care to pay attention to the discussion, open your mind, and realize that big government isn't necessarily the answer, in fact, it's usually the problem. The feudal lords of midieval Europe felt that the sovereign authorities, alone, had all the answers. How is your approach anything new? Most that support big government as the "latest and greatest" answer to all the world's problems are actually taking an approach that has been around for thousands of years. The concept of freedom and individual sovereignity is the new answer, and it hasn't really even been seriously tried yet. Keith

Keith, you are absolutely correct..
More people have been killed at the hands of their own governments than in all wars and foreign invasions combined. There is a rightful place for government by the consent of the people; but government must be kept on a short leash. As Lord Acton said "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
The major reason that the founding fathers gave us the second amendment was no so much to protect ourselves from foreign invaders,as much as to protect ourselves from our own government should it become corrupt, or out of control. When government no longer has the consent of the governed, the recognition of the natural rights and self ownership of man, or accountability to the people it loses its validity.
The responsibility of government is to protect the rights we were born with, to protect us from violating the natural rights of each, and to provide defense in the event of a foreign invasion. Beyond that it has overstepped
its bounds.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Technosoul We would all be hemp farmers.

Actually, that might not be a bad idea.

Hemp Facts
Agricultural hemp - Hemp Info - Welcome to www.hemp-info.ch! The specialist for hemp (Cannabis) in Switzerland
Industrial Hemp Farming - History and Practice
(much more available on request)

Of course, that would never be allowed, someone might smoke a leaf. Can't save the environment and the planet and the economy with something that isn't approved by the government.

The rest of your post is simply an attempt to smear a great man who, after all, was only human.

The major point of my post was to document that the quotes that I used to characterize Ron Paul's positions were not mere platitudes, but actually represented his actual, principled beliefs.

Now, do you have something more substantial than ad hominems to provide to this discussion?

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Keith Now, would you care to pay attention to the discussion, open your mind, and realize that big government isn't necessarily the answer, in fact, it's usually the problem.

If you have any answers, by all means. It's hard to open your mind to ideas that aren't being presented.

Once more, How does he intend to have an intelligence community after eliminating all of the federal elements of it? How does he intend to defend this country against other intelligence communities without one? Posting idealistic platitudes is not an answer.

[Clarence]

How does he intend to have an intelligence community after eliminating all of the federal elements of it? How does he intend to defend this country against other intelligence communities without one? Posting idealistic platitudes is not an answer.

Ron Paul makes good showing at Fox NH Republican Debate

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 If you have any answers, by all means. It's hard to open your mind to ideas that aren't being presented. Once more, How does he intend to have an intelligence community after eliminating all of the federal elements of it? How does he intend to defend this country against other intelligence communities without one? Posting idealistic platitudes is not an answer.

Without a strong central government making plans to control other governments, what is there to defend against from other intelligence communities?

Perhaps they'll seek to steal the secret formula for Coca Cola? Doesn't seem like a job for the government other than the most basic of police protection.

The answer is that these foreign intelligence organizations really only care about what our government is doing, and they only care because our government might try to do something to force their government to change. If we aren't inserting ourselves into others business there is no longer anything to hide. If our government is limited in function to what is allowed in the Constitution, there is no need for espionage and the like.

As usual for most statists, your arguments that we need government to protect us fall down in that what government is really protecting is the government. When one cites the need for government to solve a problem, it is very often that the initial problem was either caused, or made worse, by the government itself.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Without a strong central government making plans to control other governments, what is there to defend against from other intelligence communities? Perhaps they'll seek to steal the secret formula for Coca Cola? Doesn't seem like a job for the government other than the most basic of police protection. The answer is that these foreign intelligence organizations really only care about what our government is doing, and they only care because our government might try to do something to force their government to change. If we aren't inserting ourselves into others business there is no longer anything to hide. If our government is limited in function to what is allowed in the Constitution, there is no need for espionage and the like. As usual for most statists, your arguments that we need government to protect us fall down in that what government is really protecting is the government. When one cites the need for government to solve a problem, it is very often that the initial problem was either caused, or made worse, by the government itself. Keith

And your belief that the only thing we have to fear is from the evils of the big bad US government is completely fallacious. Believe it or not, in reality you don't have to provoke people for them to try and hurt you. In all walks of life, people look for the most vulnerable and strike at them when they are such. Be it the teenage girl who idiotically decided to walk down an alley in a bad part of town, or the government who idiotically decided to eliminate our only means of defending ourselves without an equal or better means.

[Osborn F Enready]

You really didn't answer the question did you Chaos?

Keith asked Chaos: Without a strong central government making plans to control other governments, what is there to defend against from other intelligence communities?

I would like to see a coherant, valid answer to that Chaos.

[Chaossaber314]

Why? It assumes that the intention of the US Gov't to control other governments has been...

A.) Established
B.) Proven

It also assumes that the only threats to our country are official parts of other states.

[Osborn F Enready]

Your choice to answer, I simply stated I wanted to see a coherant, valid answer.

Can you?

[Chaossaber314]

Alright, so what I'm getting in response to me and the Decider's question is that he intends to do nothing in response to an intelligence community after dismantling it. Why is that so difficult to just say in the first place?

[Osborn F Enready]

Because that isn't his goal.

Why is that so hard to look up on your own, or just ANSWER THE QUESTION?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[The Decider]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger The answer is that these foreign intelligence organizations really only care about what our government is doing, and they only care because our government might try to do something to force their government to change. If we aren't inserting ourselves into others business there is no longer anything to hide. If our government is limited in function to what is allowed in the Constitution, there is no need for espionage and the like.

Is this the rationale for Ron Paul's support for the dismantling of the US intelligence agencies? I understand your position, but why is it so difficult to find a similar statement regarding the CIA et al from Ron Paul himself? He had the opportunity to make one during the recent debate and he could do so at future venues.

Beyond what Ron Paul supports, I question your claim that "intelligence organizations really only care about what our government is doing, and they only care because our government might try to do something to force their government to change." Poland and Austria presented no threat to Nazi Germany, but that didn't stop Nazi spies from infiltrating both prior to invasion. Mexico offered no threat to Stalin's USSR. But that didn't stop Stalin's secret service from illegally entering Mexico to assassinate Trotsky. Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard, stole military secrets from the US government, yet the US certainly wasn't supporting regime change in Tel Aviv. I can find many other examples of spying on nations for reasons other than governments "might try to do something to force their government to change." You have not supported your claim.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Because that isn't his goal.

Really? What IS his goal then? (Same question Reiteration #537)

Why is that so hard to look up on your own, or just ANSWER THE QUESTION?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Smoke a little too much crack this morning? Try and make sense please.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Why? It assumes that the intention of the US Gov't to control other governments has been... A.) Established B.) Proven

Wait, isn't that the position that you are always arguing from?


Hell, one would think this was so clearly established in your mind that you challenge people who merely suggest it could be different.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaossaber said: Really? What IS his goal then? (Same question Reiteration #537)

His goal is a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic as was intended at the nations forming.

There is NO reason we cannot have intelligence and spy capabilities without breaking Constitutional limitations on government.

You alledge since Paul wants to dismantle the current system, he intends to leave it dismantled with no notice of current situational politics, which is not the case. He merely intends to reign in the over-reach by DESIGN of the current system, and that would require quite a bit of dismantling of the CURRENT system.