Ron Paul

[helpless]

I was going to chime in and talk about how awesome Ron Paul is but you guys are doing just fine. The ones making him look the best are those of you who are arguing against him. What are you guys so worried about if you think he has no chance?

Interesting.

 

[pcosmar]

Curiouser and curiouser

This has got my curiosity up.
I support Ron Paul because of his position on the Constitution and the BOR. No other in politics, as long as I can remember, has taken such a position, and backed it up.
And yet here is someone defending an arm of our government that is as corrupt and inherently UN-American as possible.
"things that make you go Hmm."

I wonder did he find his way here through "Operation Paperclip."
How anyone could condone the actions of the CIA, I do not understand.
Maybe he works for them.

 

[Titan6]

Paladin I see what you mean but arguing with Stage2 is fun!

It is just like in the old days when I watched the news on TV and they would say something crazy. I would say "That's a crazy bunch of lies!". But then the only person around to talk to was the wife and she would agree with me. Nowhere to go on that. But here on the interynet...

The point is he does not give up, almost like the Terminator 2000. When losing the arguement he morphs the conversation into something else to keep plugging away. However, I think if people want to have a conversation about Paul with a non supporter they need to be ready to address issues and explain positions. True, Stage2 does not really have one other than being an attack dog on Paul and that is also his biggest weakness.

 

[EricTheBarbarian]

i added Ron Paul as my friend on myspace.

 

[Titan6]

I wonder did he find his way here through "Operation Paperclip."
How anyone could condone the actions of the CIA, I do not understand.
Maybe he works for them.

LOL: No danger of that...

 

[STAGE 2]

I told you it does not. But nor has the congress ever done so. Show me a single declaration of war against a group and I will concede...

This makes entirely no sense. Congress derives its power from the constitution. Whether congress has ever in the past declared war on a group of people has nothing to do with whether they can. The constitution states that congress has the power to declare war. It doesn't address who or what war can be declared on.

In their infinite wisdom the framers understood that to limit this would be to paralyze this country. As a result, no one can point to any authority, legal or otherwise, that suggests that when congress authorizes military action but it does not explicitly say that war is declared, it is somehow invalid.

To bring it back into focus, Paul has a stance on foreign policy. A respectable, if certainly not universal, one.

If it was so universal then a majority of american people would be supporting him. Right now his numebr are so low that most polls give him a token 1% if anything at all.

Everything I say is apparently opinion, but Paul's stance on foreign policy is somehow irrebuttable.

Stage 2 is using sound-bite tactics and insisting that "everyone on this board" ought to have a certain view and, lacking substance, is resorting to endless repetition. Nothing NEW or even SPECIFIC coming from him in relation to Paul.

Again, you focus the argument on me rather then the wisdom of Paul's ideas. I've said nothing new simply because you haven't bothered to address the issue at hand. I think its really funny how irritated you get when someone has the gall to question Paul.

Stage 2's views are antithetical to the very principles Paul runs on, IMO, which is why he can't stomach the foreign policy or drug war... he claims it's because his views are being "over extended" but it shows why a person of consistency and integrity, like Paul, has the views that he has (vs. the hypocrisy of liberty for us, but not for you... or liberty by force).

Yet another example of what you've been doing the entire time. You have no idea what my views are generally. Its very telling that you accuse me of forcing my views upon others, yet your own statement suggest that a person who supports a drug war or disagrees with Paul on foreign policy is somehow not consistent or has no integrity.

Nowhere here have I said that we should be in the business of creating governments around the world. Nowhere here have I said that everything that the CIA has done is perfectly fine. You assume these things because it fits into your argument.

Mind you, while building nations we've yet to replicate the equivalent of the 2nd Amendment ANYWHERE. We're happy to sell arms and supply guns for coups... but just as happy to disarm the citizenship immediately after the revolutions in the name of stability. We turn a blind eye because we're doing it abroad instead of at home.

This is all completely irrelevant as I haven't said a word in support of nation building. That said however, most other countries don't have a 2nd amendment. Because other nations didn't have the foresight to include this in their founding documents is no fault of mine.

Get the plank out of your own eye before dealing the the spec in another's.

And you accuse me of soundbites.

 

[silliman89]

I really don't want to get involved with this argument, but some of you might like to read some of the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIA

http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
(If you don't want to read this whole thing, just search on SEIB and MIB.)

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/presidential-orders.cfm

The CIA budget and manpower, which a couple of you were comparing to NSA, is classified information that is not freely available. Please PM me with your source of information.

 

[STAGE 2]

The point is he does not give up, almost like the Terminator 2000. When losing the arguement he morphs the conversation into something else to keep plugging away. However, I think if people want to have a conversation about Paul with a non supporter they need to be ready to address issues and explain positions. True, Stage2 does not really have one other than being an attack dog on Paul and that is also his biggest weakness.

I've not "lost" anything. No one here has been able to clearly explain why it is a good idea to get rid of the CIA. No one has been able to clearly explain what would replace it. No one has been able to clearly explain hwat kind of massive logistical undertaking this whole thing would require, and how vulnerable we would be as a result.

All I've heard is "Paul knows best". Thats not good enough. If I'm going to sign on to such a drastic measure, I want to know all the details.

Neither you nor I nor Paladin, or Ron Paul has enough information to make an informed decision on whether the CIA needs to be canned. To say otherwise is simply lying.

It may very well be possible that this agency needs to be revamped or even replaced with something else entirely. However it may very well be that even with its shortcomings, the CIA has had an impeccable record of protecting our country. What we don't know and don't hear could fill volumes.

And yet here is someone defending an arm of our government that is as corrupt and inherently UN-American as possible.
"things that make you go Hmm."

I wonder did he find his way here through "Operation Paperclip."
How anyone could condone the actions of the CIA, I do not understand.
Maybe he works for them.

This is what happens when people read what they want to read. Questioning the abolishment of the CIA is not condoning its actions. I don't condone many of the things that LAPD has done over the years but I don't think we should get rid of it.

Furthermore this idea that doing things in the shadows is somehow unamerican is ridiculous. Americans have been doing the unorthodox since 1776. The british call us all sorts of vile names because we started to take cover behind trees rather than stand like a bunch of idiots in open field.

Throughout WWII and the cold war, people in the clandestine service have preserved our freedoms and ensured our security. The didn't do this by standing in the open, declaring who they were working for and what they were doing.

There are people in the world today that operate with no sense of lawfulness, fairness, or morality. They simply have no constraints. If we are going to protect ourselves against this threat we are going to have to take the gloves off somewhat. This is not, I repeat NOT inconsistent with the bill of rights or any of our freedoms.

Insisting that our intelligence agencies operate transparently, or that we should not have the power to eliminate specific threats to our nation will do nothing but give the other side an even greater advantage than they already have.

 

[STAGE 2]

I really don't want to get involved with this argument, but some of you might like to read some of the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIA

http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
(If you don't want to read this whole thing, just search on SEIB and MIB.)

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/presidential-orders.cfm

The CIA budget and manpower, which a couple of you were comparing to NSA, is classified information that is not freely available. Please PM me with your source of information.

Please, don't let silly things like facts get in their way.

 

[lamazza]

Interesting and informative debate.

 

[PaladinX13]

Please, don't let silly things like facts get in their way.

Indeed.
For example, Congress is privy to and more informed than Stage 2 by far to the operations of the CIA- and yet- extremely significant things go unreported SEIB, or otherwise, for example the "hit" put out on Saddam by Bush (shortly before the weapons inspections) using CIA as his instrument. If not for the leak to the Press, you'd have the President and the CIA expressly violating the ban on assassinations hand-in-hand.

As for "America has a history of being unorthodox", your examples are bogus. War was declared against the British and again in WWII. It was the express will of the People to do what's necessary in war (individuals have a right to life, for example, but during a state of war one does not respect that in enemy combatants).

The rest is "end justifies the means" rhetoric. A nation that carries itself with integrity receives in kind. If diplomacy is happens with a gun under the table it's not diplomacy at all.

 

[Titan6]

Stage 2 I think the facts were directed at you. You keep saying we don't need to add intelligence to the DOD, facts are it always has been there and since the 80s it has been unde DIA. He was just posting the link for you.

Anyway.

The cia has done many stupid things that have caused many foreign policy problems for the US that are well documented facts. They have been responsible for causing government change that has resulted in the death of literally millions of people. You want to support them based upon some 'unknown' action that they 'may' have taken to protect the US? That is just plain crazy.

 

[STAGE 2]

It was the express will of the People to do what's necessary in war (individuals have a right to life, for example, but during a state of war one does not respect that in enemy combatants).

So apparently the US constitution extends to all those abroad.

 

[Titan6]

'So apparently the US constitution extends to all of those abroad as well'

-- Well thank goodness for small insights. Indeed it does. At least parts of it do. The bill of rights is not some kind of treasured document reserved for Americans. These are the supposed to be the universal rights of men.

 

[STAGE 2]

Stage 2 I think the facts were directed at you. You keep saying we don't need to add intelligence to the DOD, facts are it always has been there and since the 80s it has been unde DIA. He was just posting the link for you.

Quite the contrary, the DOD already has a section for military intelligence, and yet we still had a major failure on 9/11. "Oh we'll make it bigger" isn't going to cut it. I'll let silliman speak for himself, but the links he posted seem to suppot what I've been saying about how people in congress don't have the whole picture.

You want to support them based upon some 'unknown' action that they 'may' have taken to protect the US? That is just plain crazy

No, I don't want to get rid of the CIA based upon some pieces of information that make up a part of some unknown whole. Thats just plain crazy.

If I told you that last week the quarterback threw 2 interceptions and his team lost the game as a result, and then asked you if he should be replaced, you would be an idiot to make a decision without asking about his prior performances. If that was the teams 1st loss and he held the record for passing yards, replacing him would be a stupid decision.

Paul and others here want to take action without finding the record for the season.

 

[STAGE 2]

-- Well thank goodness for small insights. Indeed it does. At least parts of it do. The bill of rights is not some kind of treasured document reserved for Americans. These are the supposed to be the universal rights of men.

Then you and I are going to part ways here.

 

[Titan6]

Yep, I kind of figured that.

And by the way the cia has lost a lot more than one game. It has been a whole bunch. I don't want to get rid of them on what I don't know I want to get rid of them on what I do know. Let them defend their record if they can.

Oh where were we?

Ron Paul. Great congressman. Would be a great president. Vote early and often.

 

[PaladinX13]

Rather than gathering intelligence, the Executive branch tells the CIA who to target for political or ideological reasons. Even ignoring the failures of their legitimate function, it's their "extra-curricular" actives that makes them a liability. It's a quarterback that not only loses the big game on occasion, but has a criminal rap sheet a mile long, a drug habit, criminal ties, routinely brings down massive fines for the team, and breaks down intangibles like team spirit & respect.

You could look the quarterback in the eye and say, "You've lost us the Superbowl and you're a liability... but you'll change, right?" OR do you go and get yourself a new QB and go to your bench in the meantime?

 

[samtechlan]

Interesting, the attacks on Paul are classic Neocon talking points. In essence we are the policeman of the world, trust the govt, attacks on the neocon foreign policy viewed as basically anti-americanism. Neocons always hate populists, libertarians, constitutionalists or anyone who puts America First.
Paul should be proud to be considered the enemy of these fake patriots.

 

[Titan6]

Paladin- Maybe I should explain. Stage 2 is either in his last semester of law school or a rookie lawyer. I can't figure out which. He knows just enough about how to debate to be irritating.

Whenever you make a long post he will attack portions of it with his regurgiatated limbaugh opinions on how the world should be while ignoring any of the facts that are inconvenient to him in hopes you will let them go. Just keep your posts to the point and refute him line by line. Otherwise his litany is endless.

For instance he still can not defend all the wretched things the agency has done yet he wants to keep them for some 'unknown' reason. He ignores the fact that they have done terrible things and ignores the fact that they have nothing substansial to show for their efforts.

Truthfully I am amazed that the mods let it go on when we are so off topic but you must admit the debate has merits.

 

[silliman89]

Like I said before, I really don't want to get involved in this debate about the CIA. I will clarify though that I tried to link to some information that could be used by both sides, because both sides were strong on opinions and ideology but weaker on details.

Let me clarify though that I like Ron Paul and expect to be voting for him in the primary. He's not me though, and so it's not possible for him to perfectly represent me. Not only do I mostly agree with him, but in the areas where I don't agree right now I don't know his exact position.

I have to tell you though, if it comes down to a tight race between Fred Thompson (good) and Rudy Giuliani (bad) in the primary (I expect McCain to drop out), I won't be voting for Ron Paul. That would be helping Giuliani to win.

I'm hoping that Fred Thompson will be so far ahead that I can vote for Ron Paul without any danger. If Thompson is so far behind that he has no chance, then I'll vote for Ron Paul too. I want Ron Paul to do well enough that other politicians move towards his position, chasing the votes he's getting. I hope he gets enough votes to influence future political campaigns.

The reason Ron Paul is never going to win though is because he wants to change things. Change scares people. Even here on THR the majority of the posts seem to want a grid locked government that can't accomplish anything.

The very things we like about Ron Paul, i.e. that he wants to shrink government and that he has the integrity to stick to his convictions, is exactly why most people (80%) will never vote for him. (Most of the remaining 20% won't vote for him because they know about the first 80%.) A huge number of people are on the public dole and don't want it reduced. Even more are enjoying the current economic prosperity and don't want to ride out the storm of changes Ron Paul would mean.

 

[STAGE 2]

Rather than gathering intelligence, the Executive branch tells the CIA who to target for political or ideological reasons. Even ignoring the failures of their legitimate function, it's their "extra-curricular" actives that makes them a liability.

Forgive me. I wasn't aware you were getting the morning briefing along with W.

Paladin- Maybe I should explain. Stage 2 is either in his last semester of law school or a rookie lawyer. I can't figure out which. He knows just enough about how to debate to be irritating.

LOL. Now thats cute.

Whenever you make a long post he will attack portions of it with his regurgiatated limbaugh opinions on how the world should be while ignoring any of the facts that are inconvenient to him in hopes you will let them go. Just keep your posts to the point and refute him line by line. Otherwise his litany is endless.

For instance he still can not defend all the wretched things the agency has done yet he wants to keep them for some 'unknown' reason. He ignores the fact that they have done terrible things and ignores the fact that they have nothing substansial to show for their efforts.

I'm ashamed titan. For a minute I though you were actually reading what I was writing.

I can't seem to understand why you can't distinguish between getting rid of the CIA and not condoning its actions. Just beacuse I don't think its a great idea to go off half cocked and can the CIA doesn't mean that I condone everything its done. This doesn't mean that I don't think changes should be made. This simply means that I don't think that canning the entire agency without real actual knowledge of its successes and failures is a good idea. And if it does need to be eliminated, I want a nice long discussion about how its going to be done, and what risks are going to be involved in this. "The DOD will take care of it" just doesnt cut it.

Finally, the fact that you think that there would ever be anything substantial for the CIA to show for its efforts demonstrates you really don't understand the nature of their work. A job well done means that nothing happens, life goes on, and the public is none the wiser.

 

[PaladinX13]

You can't be forgiven if you're not repentant.

The Executive branch's manipulations of the CIA are long standing, well known, and hardly a secret. Forget about Iran-Contra or the Cold War. Even in recent years. While some the thesis of See No Evil is (and should be) debatable, it does illustrate how the I in CIA is hogtied by politics and the singular will of any given President. Add to that the expansion of Presidential war-time powers and the ability to arbitrarily call anything a war and you have the makings of government that strong-arms its questionable will at will (whether at home or abroad). All it takes is the magic word: "Terrorist".

As for the illusion of unknown successes and failures, the known failures (say nothing of the unknown) is enough to say "Enough". This is where you're complicit in the things you claim to not condone. The line was crossed long ago, repeatedly, and continues to this day. Security through obscurity is not security at all. I mean you're literally wallowing in ignorance, justifying the CIA by virtue of your ignorance... that's absurd basis to tolerate ANY government agency.

Stage 2's argument for the CIA...

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work; it's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

 

[xd9fan]

Stage 2's argument for the CIA...

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work; it's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

LOL!!! damn funny..........this explains so much of the "war on terror"

 

[Cesiumsponge]

I can't believe this thread is still doing the same thing. Just one thing jumped out at me.

If it was so universal then a majority of american people would be supporting him.

A huge majority of American people believe in limiting the Second Amendment or getting rid of it completely. Huge groups of Americans that want to make all sorts of Consitutional amendments or force this country to adopt a specific religion. Some believe in NAFTA and WTO, and limiting free speech. Many believe we need to throw billions more into public education and trillions more into medicare and social security, which will fix everything.

Does that make them right because they are large groups of people? I bet a majority of Americans would rather have a socialistic government where everything is taken care of and dictated by the government rather than a genuine small government where *gasp* you actually have to be responsible for your own actions and decision making.