Ron Paul 2008 Presidential bid...

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Milton Wait, isn't that the position that you are always arguing from?

Incorrect.

Quote by: Osborn 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.

I alleged no such thing. In fact I asked the question in order to clarify that.

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.

So you have proof of this intention by the words of Mr. Paul or is it only your assumption.

People like Keith seem to think there is no need for an intelligence community period.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: I alleged no such thing. In fact I asked the question in order to clarify that.

Roger that, fair enough.

Chaos said: So you have proof of this intention by the words of Mr. Paul or is it only your assumption.

How much time do you have?

Chaos said: People like Keith seem to think there is no need for an intelligence community period.

I can't, and won't speak for Keith, but I will speak for myself. I feel we need intelligence, but in this day and age that should be the role of the military, with oversight by non-partisan, non-political public oversight, as well as congressional oversight.

There is no reason our intelligence needs can't be met constitutionally, and that is my argument.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul Not everything Thomas Jefferson said or did has become a part our national way of thinking.

Nor does it need to. However, his foreign policy opinions are entitled to deference given that he is one of the founders of the Republic.

If so, we would all be fathering children with our black slave girls.

Conjecture.

We would all be hemp farmers.

Hemp has valuable uses.

And we would all end up poor as a churchmouse, like Jefferson did, for not paying our bills on time.

Conjecture.

By the way they were going to bring him up on 'moral charges' but he resigned his roles in politcs before that could happen.

So what? That doesn't invalidate his foreign policy views.

But I guess some Ameircans have lived up to some of those standards.

Slick Willie Clinton.

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.

But as a founding father, his opinions on matters specifically pertaining to the Republic, e.g. foreign policy, are entitled to deference.

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.

Hemp has other uses and had other uses back then.

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

Typical leftist revisionist who seeks to re-write history to make it politically correct, meaning anti-American.

[Chancellor]

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?

The utter stupidity of your question makes it not worthy of a response. You presume (stupidly, I might add - and, no, that doesn't mean I'm calling you stupid, though I might be inclined to if you try to accuse me of doing so since it would show you incapable of telling the difference) that there even needs to be an intelligence community. Think about what you're saying here. Don't you think that if Ron Paul wants to eliminate the intelligence agencies maybe he doesn't think intelligence agencies are constitutional?

How does he intend to defend this country against other intelligence communities without one? Posting idealistic platitudes is not an answer.

Again, you presume there is a need for an "intelligence community."

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 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.

You allege that Paul has a contingency plan for dismantling the CIA, DIA, NSA, and the other federal components of America's intelligence community. What government agency or agencies does Paul intend to vest with intelligence gathering duties? Does he want to create a new one? Certainly a presidential candidate would not recommend such an historic reorganization of American government without a raft full of specific proposals. If he doesn't, Paul hasn't thought through his policy, demonstrating a lack of organization and preparation abilities. So I'm sure you have some specifics for the President Paul intelligence gathering proposal because Paul is ready for the job. Right?

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chancellor The utter stupidity of your question makes it not worthy of a response. You presume (stupidly, I might add - and, no, that doesn't mean I'm calling you stupid, though I might be inclined to if you try to accuse me of doing so since it would show you incapable of telling the difference) that there even needs to be an intelligence community. Think about what you're saying here. Don't you think that if Ron Paul wants to eliminate the intelligence agencies maybe he doesn't think intelligence agencies are constitutional? Again, you presume there is a need for an "intelligence community."

Before calling anybody's ideas "stupid," make sure you apply the opinion to everyone who acknowleges Paul's need for some level of intelligence gathering capability. Like the following poster:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready
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.

Is Osborn's suggestion "stupid" too?

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn How much time do you have?

Plenty.

Quote by: Chancellor Don't you think that if Ron Paul wants to eliminate the intelligence agencies maybe he doesn't think intelligence agencies are constitutional?

Well he is entitled to his opinion. One that seems largely out of step with every real constitutional scholar I've ever spoken to.

Again, you presume there is a need for an "intelligence community."

Again, you presume, and stupidly I might add, that there isn't a need. Even Osborn recognizes this need.

Quote by: Decider Is Osborn's suggestion "stupid" too?

Furthermore, if Osborn is right about Paul's stance, is Paul's opinion now stupid as well?

[Osborn F Enready]

Decider said: You allege that Paul has a contingency plan for dismantling the CIA, DIA, NSA, and the other federal components of America's intelligence community.

Whoa, and again, I didn't say that.

I said his goal was to reign in the unconstitutional system, as it exists, and that could take a multitude of forms, depending on how it is done. I have not seen a comprehensive plan for this, but then again, I have not looked. The reformation is essential, and while I am sure there are pitfalls and problems with redesign, I am not worried in the slightest about the issue being too complex to resolve, on the fly, through debate by those involved, responsible and charged with such actions.

Decider said: What government agency or agencies does Paul intend to vest with intelligence gathering duties? Does he want to create a new one? Certainly a presidential candidate would not recommend such an historic reorganization of American government without a raft full of specific proposals. If he doesn't, Paul hasn't thought through his policy, demonstrating a lack of organization and preparation abilities.

If you are seriously curious, perhaps you should consult the Paul campaign and ask these questions.
I wouldn't expect you to rely on my words, which would only be paraphrasing of his words, so if it is a true concern, please by all means contact Paul.

Decider said: So I'm sure you have some specifics for the President Paul intelligence gathering proposal because Paul is ready for the job. Right?

I think Paul is more than ready for the job, but I don't find knowing the entire plan essential to cast that vote, since his integrity and consistency show his clear grasp of the situation as well as his ability to deal with the issue, which is NOT a one man issue. It is a government issue, and the people, the voters MUST be consulted. Paul doesn't claim to have all the answers, he only claims to have an honestly objective perspective on what the problems are, and where to start actually resolving them.... something none of the other canidates have shown willingness to do at all.

I am not the Paul campaign representative, but if you intend to seriously argue against the man, shouldn't you at least have the decency to see what he has to say with your own eyes, ears and mind?

Chaossaber said: Plenty.

Ok, this should start you in the right direction:

Issues platform for 2008:
Ron Paul 2008 › Issues

Ron Paul Legislative History, current to 1996.
Congressman Ron Paul


I don't want you to think I am copping out about the questions, because in truth I really want to see someone who is not sure of Paul, contact Paul, ask your questions, and post the replies.

[Deadeye]

Oh, I've got it! Democrats want Ron Paul to run; and or question the Republicans.

There is no way the Ron Paul will get the nomination by Republicans. However, Demos might run him for VP.

[Osborn F Enready]

Deadeye, Ron Paul is the Democrats worst nightmare, in more ways than one.

The current neocons that control the republican party may not nominate him, but, they aren't republicans, just the victors standing over what was once a party of individual rights and conservative values, which is now a corporatist, fascist wanna-be party.

To even pass a notion that a democrip would nominate Paul is to admit you have no connection to reality whatsoever. (thanks for getting that out in the open so quickly, and plainly though.)

[Chancellor]

Quote by: The Decider Before calling anybody's ideas "stupid," make sure you apply the opinion to everyone who acknowleges Paul's need for some level of intelligence gathering capability. Like the following poster: Quote by: Osborn F Enready 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. Is Osborn's suggestion "stupid" too?

First of all, I was calling a particular question "stupid" and I presume you know the difference between an idea and a question. Second, I was also saying that someone's presumption that there must be intelligence gathering (the presumption being the basis for the question) was "stupid." Both are, of course, different from someone believing that there should be intelligence gathering (though, I'm not sure the word "idea" would apply). If someone wants to believe there should be intelligence gathering, fine; but don't presume that there must be intelligence gathering as if the need was fact and don't use such a presumption as a basis for attacking someone's criticism of intelligence gathering.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well said Chancellor.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Chancellor First of all, I was calling a particular question "stupid" and I presume you know the difference between an idea and a question. Second, I was also saying that someone's presumption that there must be intelligence gathering (the presumption being the basis for the question) was "stupid." Both are, of course, different from someone believing that there should be intelligence gathering (though, I'm not sure the word "idea" would apply). If someone wants to believe there should be intelligence gathering, fine; but don't presume that there must be intelligence gathering as if the need was fact and don't use such a presumption as a basis for attacking someone's criticism of intelligence gathering.

I'll take "splitting hairs" for 500, Alex.

It really shows a reaching argument when you're throwing a temper tantrum over a differentiation between must and should. Linguistics aside, it appears as though as you're liberalizing your view of the intelligence community you were just stamping your feet about being unnecessary.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I'll take "splitting hairs" for 500, Alex. It really shows a reaching argument when you're throwing a temper tantrum over a differentiation between must and should. Linguistics aside, it appears as though as you're liberalizing your view of the intelligence community you were just stamping your feet about being unnecessary.

There is an important difference between must and should. It is the lazy mind that seeks to gloss over such things. No one here has established as fact that there must be intelligence gathering and, so, it's really stupid of someone to presume such a fact and then to use that presumption as a basis for attacking Ron Paul's proposed policy. A few here have expressed an opinion that there should be intelligence gathering or that we need intelligence gathering capability and I have no problem with someone having such opinions (that I happen to disagree with those opinions is not particularly relevant).

As for what you think "appears" to be a change in my opinion, your observation skills are sorely lacking.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Chancellor There is an important difference between must and should. It is the lazy mind that seeks to gloss over such things. No one here has established as fact that there must be intelligence gathering and, so, it's really stupid of someone to presume such a fact and then to use that presumption as a basis for attacking Ron Paul's proposed policy. A few here have expressed an opinion that there should be intelligence gathering or that we need intelligence gathering capability and I have no problem with someone having such opinions (that I happen to disagree with those opinions is not particularly relevant).

And what proposed policy would that be exactly? No one here seems to know what it is Paul intends to do in place of the organizations he is wanting to cut. In the last debate not even Paul himself seemed to know.

As for the necessity of an intelligence community, use some common sense for a change. If other competing nations have intelligence services which is typically a catch-all for concepts like spying, and espionage, (something you still don't seem to get) and we suddenly take away our ability to counter other nations, what do you think can happen?

If two people are holding guns at each other, you don't throw yours away while the other person is still pointing there's at you.

For someone who likes throwing around ad hominems you would think you would have some intelligent backing to your arguments beyond "Nuh uh, nuh uh, the world is safe without us, lalalala, I'm not listening!"

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 And what proposed policy would that be exactly? No one here seems to know what it is Paul intends to do in place of the organizations he is wanting to cut. In the last debate not even Paul himself seemed to know. As for the necessity of an intelligence community, use some common sense for a change. If other competing nations have intelligence services which is typically a catch-all for concepts like spying, and espionage, (something you still don't seem to get) and we suddenly take away our ability to counter other nations, what do you think can happen? If two people are holding guns at each other, you don't throw yours away while the other person is still pointing there's at you. For someone who likes throwing around ad hominems you would think you would have some intelligent backing to your arguments beyond "Nuh uh, nuh uh, the world is safe without us, lalalala, I'm not listening!"

OK. You're right. I haven't found anything directly from Paul concerning what he plans to do, however, let's try this on for size ...

If we are no longer meddling in other countries' business, we have no need to spy on what they're doing in their own country. And, other than the possibility of wanting to do us harm because we're so free and happy (which seems to be a common premise among the neocons) there is no reason for them to worry about what we're doing in our own country.

As for them wanting to do us harm for no apparent good reason other than jealousy, there is plenty of internal police, preferably at the state level because there is absolutely no Constitutional justification for federal police, whatsoever. A person wishing to do harm to Americans in America is simply another criminal and should be handled as such. No need to spy on what others are doing within their own countries to handle such matters.

I just find it amazing that you guys will watch this entire country be run into the ground rather than even consider there is a chance for change.

Keith

[The Decider]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger OK. You're right. I haven't found anything directly from Paul concerning what he plans to do

Maybe as time goes by Paul will unveil a plan for the voters to consider.

Quote by: Keith Hamburger If we are no longer meddling in other countries' business, we have no need to spy on what they're doing in their own country. And, other than the possibility of wanting to do us harm because we're so free and happy (which seems to be a common premise among the neocons) there is no reason for them to worry about what we're doing in our own country. As for them wanting to do us harm for no apparent good reason other than jealousy, there is plenty of internal police, preferably at the state level because there is absolutely no Constitutional justification for federal police, whatsoever. A person wishing to do harm to Americans in America is simply another criminal and should be handled as such. No need to spy on what others are doing within their own countries to handle such matters.

Fifty state police forces dedicated to national security? Foreign spies enter the US by violating immigration laws; that is a federal problem. If foreign spies target federal property within a state, that is federal problem. If foreign spies target foreign diplomatic missions or personnel, that is a federal problem. If foreign spies target foreign political refugees (a diplomatic status given by the State Department), that is a federal problem. If this is Ron Paul's plan for catching foreign spies, that is a major political problem. I can see why he doesn't talk about it much.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Keith If we are no longer meddling in other countries' business, we have no need to spy on what they're doing in their own country.

How do you figure? The US is the only country up to no good in the world?

And, other than the possibility of wanting to do us harm because we're so free and happy (which seems to be a common premise among the neocons)

Or how about because we're competition? You really believe there's no other organizations or nations out there with malicious intentions, don't you?

As for them wanting to do us harm for no apparent good reason other than jealousy, there is plenty of internal police, preferably at the state level because there is absolutely no Constitutional justification for federal police, whatsoever.

-Necessary and Proper clause.
-Judiciary Act of 1789 as authorized by Article 3 of the US Constitution. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created among many other things, the US Marshals Service.
-And now after more than two centuries we have constitutional precedent.

Bluntly put, you're wrong.

A person wishing to do harm to Americans in America is simply another criminal and should be handled as such. No need to spy on what others are doing within their own countries to handle such matters.

Yes and Federal agencies treat criminals as criminals. There are more agencies than the CIA, that do many more things domestically than overseas.

I just find it amazing that you guys will watch this entire country be run into the ground rather than even consider there is a chance for change.

And here is where you're dead wrong. I can't speak for Technosoul and the Decider but I'm all for reforms. What I am absolutely 100% NOT for is dismantling the system without any clear plan or god forbid, remote idea of what is going to be done in its place.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: The Decider Fifty state police forces dedicated to national security? Foreign spies enter the US by violating immigration laws; that is a federal problem. If foreign spies target federal property within a state, that is federal problem. If foreign spies target foreign diplomatic missions or personnel, that is a federal problem. If foreign spies target foreign political refugees (a diplomatic status given by the State Department), that is a federal problem. If this is Ron Paul's plan for catching foreign spies, that is a major political problem. I can see why he doesn't talk about it much.

Sounds to me a lot of the things you're worrying about are those caused by the federal government, anyway.

Why should we have extensive amounts of federal property within the states? Most of that property is for the things we do that cause people in other countries to want to hurt us. Read military. If our military was set to its proper purpose as intended at the founding of this country, defending Americans IN AMERICA, we wouldn't need most of that federal propery.

Foriegn embassies are the responsibility of the host country to protect. If the host country isn't willing or able to protect our diplomatic missions, why are we there?

Why are we bringing in "political refugees"? I don't see a justification for that in the Constitution. And, if they are allowed into the country, they should be protected in the same manner as any other resident of this country, with the same risks and the same opportunities. If there is a credible threat to their safety, it should be handled just like any threat to anyone else's safety, locally and preferably privately. You won't have cops hanging outside your door if a neighbor or family member threatens you.

As to the fifty state police forces, who cares if they came in illegally, if they're conducting espionage and threatening facilities, they are nothing more than common criminals and should be handled as such. If they're just looking around, why should we have anything to hide if we're not planning on interfering with what they're doing in their own countries?

This is just like most every other "problem" that our federal government sets out to "solve". Most likely, the majority of the "problem" was caused by a previous "solution". If the feds would stop trying to "solve problems", there would be a whole lot less "problems" to begin with.

Keith

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Sounds to me a lot of the things you're worrying about are those caused by the federal government, anyway. Why should we have extensive amounts of federal property within the states? Most of that property is for the things we do that cause people in other countries to want to hurt us. Read military. If our military was set to its proper purpose as intended at the founding of this country, defending Americans IN AMERICA, we wouldn't need most of that federal propery. Foriegn embassies are the responsibility of the host country to protect. If the host country isn't willing or able to protect our diplomatic missions, why are we there? Why are we bringing in "political refugees"? I don't see a justification for that in the Constitution. And, if they are allowed into the country, they should be protected in the same manner as any other resident of this country, with the same risks and the same opportunities. If there is a credible threat to their safety, it should be handled just like any threat to anyone else's safety, locally and preferably privately. You won't have cops hanging outside your door if a neighbor or family member threatens you. As to the fifty state police forces, who cares if they came in illegally, if they're conducting espionage and threatening facilities, they are nothing more than common criminals and should be handled as such. If they're just looking around, why should we have anything to hide if we're not planning on interfering with what they're doing in their own countries? This is just like most every other "problem" that our federal government sets out to "solve". Most likely, the majority of the "problem" was caused by a previous "solution". If the feds would stop trying to "solve problems", there would be a whole lot less "problems" to begin with. Keith

I am jumping back in at this point in the dabate here.

Federal land is areas set aside not just for military purposes only.

Some areas are set aside in a state as a national treasure so that people in all the states can enjoy them, which was done early in our government relative to a number of national parks such as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon. Preserving national "wonders" to the future and for current tourists. Federal prisons are on federal land and we cannot put them all in Washington DC. Areas of the boarder adjoining other countries is federal land. Some areas are set aside just for environmental reasons, to save the aligators or other wild things from vanishing, and to preserve nesting grouds (wetlands) for migrating birds, and so forth. That project started a long time ago after we nearly distroyed the last herds of the Buffalo that was once abundant. A good idea. The Feds overview land managment in some respects concerning our natural resources such as water. And the transportation department overviews private railroads and their "right of passage" policies, and interstate highway systems, and to some degree airports as they are ports of entry. In other words, there is a lot more to the reasons for federal properties other then just to have a military base or keep our stockpiles of weapons, or our underground missle defense project.

The states also set aside areas of state properties for a number of reasons, such as some of our beaches along the coast here in California.

Those reasons became evident after the Consitution was writen because in those first days when our nation was founded such was not needed, nor even visioned by he writers of the Consitution.

As I recall when the Nam boat people were given refuge here they did not get speical protection. At the time our landlord rented them apartments because he was insured the rent would be paid by the government until the people got good jobs. Some of the punks in our apartment complex hated them (they would hang smelly fish to dry in the patios) and walked around in their PJs. My 9 year old son was surprised when one of their kids invited him over to his palce and the women inside the house were topless. That was their culture. But when trouble broke out due to the punks the police came to the rescue as as for anyone else. The got no speical attention. That was before someone came up with the ideas about "hate crimes'. Which was only a few years ago.

I recall one Nam guy that my brother was going to hire. The guy did not understand our system, when he found out that the starting pay was less then what the other workers were paid he refused employment and said he did not want to work cheaper because that is not fair to those who had worked there for a long time, thinking that he was under-cutting them and they might get fired because he worked for less. It took my brother some talking to inform him about who people in America get promotions in pay the longer they remain on the job. But he did not comprehend such a thing.

Point is, that population of boat people adapted and are now just like everyone else. Not clear what you mean by 'special protections"?

I think the law you have addressed is a special protection given to people who come here to represent their country, and to lawyer for people visiting here from their country who get arrested. But that is not a big topic relative to the current elections.