Ron Paul

[Geister]

"he's uglier than a pecker on a dog."

That's not a real respectable thing for you to say about one of the few people in Washington who hasn't compromised your gun rights.

If I can, I'll probably write in Ron Paul as president for the next election. Doesn't look like there'll be much difference between the Republicans and Democrats, especially if one of the NY Repubs gets the nod.

The problem with our country is that the Founding Fathers expected every statesman to be like Ron Paul and that the Fourth Branch of government, the people, would always be there to keep the government in check. Unfortunately that was too idealistic; even the people are too busy with their own lives to constantly be able to keep the government in check.

 

[Damien45]

Correct me if I am wrong, which I don't think I am, a ballot does include a spot for a write in. Just because someone doesn't have the money to be "listed" on the ballot doesn't mean they can't be voted for. Simply put, if he isn't on the ballot come election day, write him in.

Someone made a good point, TV is not the only media anymore. The internet has probably made more of an impact on the people then network TV in the last couple years. Get the message out there to vote for him, on the ballot or as a write in. The election is supposed to be about who the people want, not just who "Big Money" push to have.

 

[LawBot5000]

Just because Ron Paul happens to see certain things the same way as the liberals doesnt mean he is wrong. Even Al Sharpton is right twice a day.

We need to keep up the good work of harassing the mainstream media and getting them to give Ron Paul more airtime. We succeeded in getting him some fox news coverage, but we clearly have a ton of work ahead of us. This could end up being a conservative version of the howard dean campaign, only without the BYAAAAAARRRGH warcry that ended Dean's run.

Long before the primaries are the republican debates. We need to make sure that there is a consensus on Ron Paul being popular and viable.

 

[STAGE 2]

No one on this board should vote for a man who has unequivocally stated that he wants to get rid of the CIA.

 

[publius]

Yes, thank goodness the CIA was around warning us that the entire Soviet Empire was about to collapse and the Berlin Wall would soon fall.

Seriously, if they can't see that coming down the pike, how much good information do they have that we really need?

I'll vote for Dr. Paul. I'll do it in a swing state, and I'll do it in the primary, and I'll do it in the general election, even if I have to write it in.

I want a President who can correctly identify something ~anything~ which is NOT interstate commerce, and therefore not a federal concern. It doesn't sound hard, but turns out to be almost impossible. Paul is the ONLY one who has done it. He's the ONLY one therefore who sees any limit to federal power. Screw the CIA, THAT is THE important issue.

 

[STAGE 2]

Seriously, if they can't see that coming down the pike, how much good information do they have that we really need?

Seriously, if our military cant even win in a country with a bunch of rag tag third world thugs with antiquated weapons how much do we really need them.


See how stupid that sounds.

 

[royh]

The difference is that the CIA exists to provide the US with precisely the sort of information they failed to, while the military exists to protect the US and not to embark on under-manned occupations.

 

[STAGE 2]

The difference is that the CIA exists to provide the US with precisely the sort of information they failed to, while the military exists to protect the US and not to embark on under-manned occupations.

So do we thrown the baby out with the bath water?

Does anyone here actually know how effective the CIA is? My guess is no. If there are, they certianly arent going to talk about it.

Sure 9/11 was botched. But if that was 1 miss out of 100 hits then is it a really good idea to do away with them. Do we really think that because we don't read about it in the news that things don't happen.

I don't know what the CIA is up to, but I am fully aware that what I dont know about the CIA is enormous compared to what I do know. The same applies to the little congressman from Texas. His comments are at the height of ignorance.

 

[PaladinX13]

I don't know what the CIA is up to, but I am fully aware that what I dont know about the CIA is enormous compared to what I do know.

The same applies to the little congressman from Texas. His comments are at the height of ignorance.

And your comments are the height of irresponsibility. The flipside of freedom and liberty is responsibility and if you're not aware of what the CIA is doing, you're in little position to use it as it an attack against someone you see as a threat to your blind loyalist stance.

You act as if the CIA were indispensable forgetting that it came into being only in recent history and the CIA, as it exists today, is something forged in our lifetime (maybe not yours, I can't measure your age based on the maturity of your posts... youth are easily indoctrinated and made zealots). But even that would be forgivable since it would be merely ignorance. What's worse is the attitude that government be left up to our betters.

"Since I don't know, I'll be 'humble' and let them run things as they see fit."

This is a heinous way of thinking when it comes to government. We've come so far away from laymen statesmen that only "professional" politicians can be seen as legitimate. That's hardly a government "of the People and by the People".

If the machinations of government are beyond your comprehension it's possible that they're exceeding their reach, you need to do your civic duty more (as in understanding government- not politics- instead of heckling candidates or party fervor), or probably both.

 

[lamazza]

I like Ron Paul and I think he is a straight talker and would make a great Prez, but...If he is going to go for it he'd better get cracking and start making a national name for himself. I would vote for him but I like Fred Thompson too and Paul will be doing a disservice to all of us by dilluting the conservative vote.

 

[Titan6]

Are not the first round of GOP debates tonight?

 

[Silver Bullet]

Just a reminder to everybody to get involved at the primary level.

Otherwise, we're going to be looking at Giuliani or McCain on the Republican side vs. Clinton or Obama.

Can anyone describe the process of becoming a registered Republican for the 2008 election, assuming that is what is required to vote in the primary ?

 

[pcosmar]

"Does anyone here actually know how effective the CIA is?"

"I don't know what the CIA is up to, "
What I do KNOW is enough to justify getting rid of them.
Project MKULTRA,
Phoenix Program
Bluebird
What I don't know scares the hell out of me.

Another good reason to vote Ron Paul.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Good lord, Stage 2 seems to be a Ron Paul troll. He always states Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance so we shouldn't even pay any attention at any given opportunity, but takes the time out of his day to warn us how evil he is every time he pops up on a thread and we're all throwing away our votes.

Who's paying you, Obama?

 

[STAGE 2]

And your comments are the height of irresponsibility. The flipside of freedom and liberty is responsibility and if you're not aware of what the CIA is doing, you're in little position to use it as it an attack against someone you see as a threat to your blind loyalist stance.

This makes no sense whatsoever. BECAUSE I don't know what the CIA does is exactly why I don't think getting rid of it is a good ideal. This would fall under the chapter of not making a decision until one is fully informed. Paul has more insight to their actions that any of us here, but even he doesn't really have any idea of what they have done or what they are doing.

Since I'm not advocating doing anything to the CIA and Paul is, by your logic he is in no position at all.

You act as if the CIA were indispensable forgetting that it came into being only in recent history and the CIA, as it exists today, is something forged in our lifetime (maybe not yours, I can't measure your age based on the maturity of your posts... youth are easily indoctrinated and made zealots). But even that would be forgivable since it would be merely ignorance. What's worse is the attitude that government be left up to our betters.

Its a brilliant strawman but a strawman nonetheless. I haven't advocated anything about the CIA other than the fact that it shouldn't be abolished wholesale. Contrary to what you have insinuated, this statement does not preclude making changes, adding, or subtracting from this agency's abilities.

While it is true that the CIA has only be around since 1947 this is hardly what I would call recent. Prior to the CIA and its wartime predecessor, the OSS, our intelligence was conducted by various people in various agencies with no central direction. Not surprisingly it wasn't very effective.

Of course, all of this was during a time when oceans and borders still largely separated nations. In today's society to dismantle the CIA would be suicide. 9/11 occured because agencies didn't deal with one another and share enough information. What do you think would happen if we went back to the days of each agency for itself.

"Since I don't know, I'll be 'humble' and let them run things as they see fit."

Again, this isn't what Ive said. Stating that one shouldn't get rid of the CIA is not the same as saying things are fine as they are.

This is a heinous way of thinking when it comes to government. We've come so far away from laymen statesmen that only "professional" politicians can be seen as legitimate. That's hardly a government "of the People and by the People".

If the machinations of government are beyond your comprehension it's possible that they're exceeding their reach, you need to do your civic duty more (as in understanding government- not politics- instead of heckling candidates or party fervor), or probably both.

I comprehend things fine. I have no desire for professional politicians, hence my ardent support of term limits. Ironically enough Paul is just as much a professional politician as those others which you despise.

However even if he wasn't, should I vote for him simply because he isn't the establishment even though I don't agree with his views? That would be equally ridiculous.

The bottom line is that at this time in history to suggest that we get rid of our best means of gathering information is totally ridiculous and not the position of someone qualified to run the country.

 

[STAGE 2]

Good lord, Stage 2 seems to be a Ron Paul troll. He always states Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance so we shouldn't even pay any attention at any given opportunity, but takes the time out of his day to warn us how evil he is every time he pops up on a thread and we're all throwing away our votes.

Quite the contrary. I was willing to give Paul the benefit of the doubt for my primary vote. I did some research and there were some things I liked and some things I didn't. I'm not fond of his stance on the war and since he's a libertarian I probably don't side with him regarding the war on drugs.

However when I tuned in to Maher's show to see what he had to say I was floored. To suggest that we don't need the CIA and that as president he would get rid of it is ridiculous. To state that we should never use assassination as a tool of force is equally ridiculous. We can't revert to how things "used to be". That just won't work anymore.

 

[oldfart]

"The bottom line is that at this time in history to suggest that we get rid of our best means of gathering information is totally ridiculous and not the position of someone qualified to run the country."

Aw hell, none of them are really qualified. If we wait for someone like that we may be waiting until the resurrection. No matter who we look at, there's something wrong with him. Either he's been divorced too many times or he's a Mormon or he flip-flops on major issues or . . . or he's too honest! Of course I can see why some people might not want an honest man in the oval office but I ain't one of them! It's been so long since we had that luxury I doubt many of us would feel comfortable with it. Still, when I contemplate all the dishonesty that has spewed from the White House through the past several administrations I can't help thinking fondly of the final scenes in Tom Clancy's book "Debt of Honor."

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Ron Paul has a lot of other ideas too. I don't think its exactly fair to exclude him because he might have one idea that rubs you badly while there are another 100 you might agree with. There are a few iffy areas I see as well but when I weigh the positives and negatives, he is magnitudes in the positive, and lightyears ahead of other candidates.

Besides, most of his "big ideas" will require decades to successfully implement. If he became President, he would have to work on smaller changes first, and build the foundations for future leaders to carry on his work. To achieve what he (or the Constitution) wants by simplifying the government, it's going to take more than two 4 year terms.

Most importantly, he would need to educate the masses on the Constitution so the people would continue to push that cause after he finishes up his terms in office. His work is worthless if the people continue to sit in a state of apathy afterwards.

Just curious, what is your stance and elaboration on assasination? I'm not exactly clear what you're after on that last post when you bring it up.

 

[PaladinX13]

I'll let your own words expose you.

No one on this board should vote for a man who has unequivocally stated that he wants to get rid of the CIA.

So, you no comprehension of how they work. You don't condone their actions. Fact of the matter is you barely seem to have ANY grasp of what they do. And yet use your limited understanding as a basis for what everyone "on this board" should do? You embarrass yourself. The CIA represents Iran-Contra and represents democracy completely undermined, wholly illegal government actions without the will of the People, oversight, or checks-n-balances using any means- morally deficient, destabilizing, and costly in lives and tax money- to ends not agreed upon by the People.

I comprehend things fine. I have no desire for professional politicians, hence my ardent support of term limits. Ironically enough Paul is just as much a professional politician as those others which you despise.

I seriously doubt you do otherwise you wouldn't mention term-limits and professional politician in the same breath as Paul and expect to be taken seriously. Again, you're exposing yourself as a zealot and derelict in your civic duty acting as an attack dog instead of understanding your statesmen.

Paul was the first congressman to propose term limits for the House. He obeyed the unwritten ones himself and returned to and supported his family through his medical practice NOT the tax-payer dollar. He turned down the extravagant government pension and actually puts money INTO the coffers. He does not live off of being a politician in the same way you survive by poor attempts a denigrating him.

 

[PaladinX13]

To state that we should never use assassination as a tool of force is equally ridiculous. We can't revert to how things "used to be". That just won't work anymore.

When has it ever worked?

If you believe the government has that right- that the powers that be can arbitrarily decide to destabilize, build, or war with nations without the consensus of the people- then there's basically no talking sense with you. You believe the government is self-justifying which is the most heinous dereliction of civic duty as a citizen, IMO.

 

[Damien45]

Dr. Paul has stated that the CIA, as it is now, needs to go. He has stated that the need for forward Intelligence is vital. So is he getting rid of the CIA, or is he going to redefine the repsonsibilities and limitation of the CIA?

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Ron Paul wants to kill the CIA and shift intelligence funtions to the DOD.

Some House addresses, speeches, writings, etc. I could find regarding the CIA on a quick search:

We did a poor job in providing the security that all Americans should expect. This is our foremost responsibility. Some members have been quick to point out the shortcomings of the FBI, the CIA and the FAA and claim more money will rectify the situation. I'm not so sure. Bureaucracies by nature are inefficient. The FBI and CIA records come up short. The FBI loses computers and guns and is careless with records. The CIA rarely provides timely intelligence. The FAA's idea of security against hijackers is asking all passengers who packed their bag.

In 1953, our CIA, with help of the British, participated in overthrowing the democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mossadegh. We placed the shah in power. He ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that we protected him – that is, until 1979. We even provided him with Iran's first nuclear reactor. Evidently, we didn't buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979, his authoritarian rule served to incite a radical Muslim opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979. This blowback event was slow in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of the shah by the ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most Americans either never knew about or easily forgot our unwise meddling in the internal affairs of Iran in 1953.

the Ayatollah Khomeini's success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.

Ever since its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. Considering the CIA's overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadegh in the 1950s, and the CIA's training of the Mujahedin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong.

 

[ProjectMayhem]

You act as if the CIA were indispensable forgetting that it came into being only in recent history and the CIA, as it exists today, is something forged in our lifetime (maybe not yours, I can't measure your age based on the maturity of your posts... youth are easily indoctrinated and made zealots). But even that would be forgivable since it would be merely ignorance. What's worse is the attitude that government be left up to our betters.

"Since I don't know, I'll be 'humble' and let them run things as they see fit."

This is an attitude that bugs me a lot. The assumption that we need professional politicians, many of whom lack any kind of reality-based education, to lead us and make these decisions for us. As if they, by nature of having gone to law school or having the largest war chest, deserve to be the ‘chief deciders’. Most of these schmucks couldn’t lead a group of people out of a paper bag without resorting to meaningless sound bites and gutless ‘initiatives’. Ironically, Second Amendment supporters should know this instinctively, as we are a group that can recognize first hand the danger that powerful, ignorant people pose to our freedom.

These people attempt to legislate on everything from pornography to marriage to drugs to firearms to education to immigration to healthcare. The justification? The expertise? It better come in the form of outside advisors, because otherwise all we’ll ever get is a bunch of bad laws that look good to people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Somehow, this sounds familiar.

The American government is, I believe, the longest running form of government in the world. We have had our system in place for longer than any other contemporary nation has had theirs. Do you think that’s because the people who founded this country didn’t know what they were talking about? That history hasn’t vindicated the way they wanted things to work? How can you possibly argue against someone who supports the foundation on which this nation was built?

The United States isn’t about empire, and it’s not about partisan politics that only serve to divide us. It might seem like it today, but don’t be lured into the belief that we need to compromise our fundamental principles to fit a world that has ‘moved past’ where we used to be. Empires and corrupt societies necessarily fall. They cannot hold. People do not change. Resist the temptation. Don’t force us to buy back what has already been paid for.

 

[STAGE 2]

Paul was the first congressman to propose term limits for the House. He obeyed the unwritten ones himself and returned to and supported his family through his medical practice NOT the tax-payer dollar. He turned down the extravagant government pension and actually puts money INTO the coffers. He does not live off of being a politician in the same way you survive by poor attempts a denigrating him.

And yet he's back in the game, this time as a republican because he simply can't get elected as a libertarian.

Term limits are just that. You go, serve your time, and return home. Period.

So, you no comprehension of how they work. You don't condone their actions. Fact of the matter is you barely seem to have ANY grasp of what they do.

Yet again you put words in my mouth. Not knowing WHAT they have done is far different than HOW they work. If you think every operation that the CIA is engaged in will hit the New York Times, then we are going to have to part ways because there isn't angthing I can do to bring you back into reality.

When has it ever worked?

If you believe the government has that right- that the powers that be can arbitrarily decide to destabilize, build, or war with nations without the consensus of the people- then there's basically no talking sense with you. You believe the government is self-justifying which is the most heinous dereliction of civic duty as a citizen, IMO.

The issue is not when has it worked, but whether we should needlessly limit ourselves from the get go. I for one think all options should be on the table.
Furthermore, I don't recall any war that we have gotten into lately without the approval of congress.

However, all of these things are a giant smokescreen for the real issue. Specifically whether it is wise to call for the destruction of the CIA without really having an idea about what its doing or what its done in the recent past.

Its irresponsible no matter how you slice it.

 

[publius]

Specifically whether it is wise to call for the destruction of the CIA without really having an idea about what its doing or what its done in the recent past.

I think the quotes above show some idea of what the agency has been up to, and how it has worked out.

Calling for an end to the current intelligence bureaucracy is not the same thing as calling for an end to all covert/intelligence activities.