Ron Paul

[STAGE 2]

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".

And yet the military will somehow be better at policing this than what we have now? We couldnt even square away a stupid minimum security prison and you think that because the military is involved all the abuses of power will go away? The president is still the commander in chief and the joint chiefs still are beholden to him. As a result there is absolutely no guarantee that the problems which we have now would go away by simply dumping this on the DOD.

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.

Funny that you speak of ignorance. Because its the height of ignorance to determine a course of action with virtually no information. Your knowledge about what goes on at the CIA is based on what you have read in the papers and seen on the news, yet you are absolutely sure that the best thing to do is to get rid of it. Fixing it is apparently out of the question. Why? Because Ron Paul says so. Thats not good enough for me. I have this nasty habit of thinking for myself.

While it is certian that things can be improved over there, junking the entire agency may not be the best alternative. And you haven't provided me with a single reason why it is.

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.

Ah yes, when argument fails ad hominem is the next best thing. You see, your problem is that you are so worried that your candidate might be wrong that you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that one of his ideas might be problematic. I don't understand this because odds are even the best candidate will part ways with his constitutents on some issue. This doesn't mean that theres anything wrong with him, simply that you have a minor disagreement.

If you've read my argument you'd know that I haven't been advocating for the CIA not to be changed, or even for it to stay. What I have been advocating is that if changes are going to be made, they shouldn't be done until all the cards are on the table. You can't judge something with only half its record (or likely 1/100th in this case).

However, judging by your posts you do seem intelligent so I'm going to wager you know what I'm saying and are simply refusing to concede the point because it could reveal some possible flaw in your candidate.

This is what I find irritating, and this is largely the problem we have in politics today. Too many people are willing to blindly follow without pausing to think or ask questions.

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.

You're missing the point. If Paul's ideas were universal, then he would have had a far more prosperous political career and the libertarian party wouldn't be some piddly little organization. This has nothing to do with whether Paul's ideas are right or wrong, merely that they are not "universal" as Paladin suggested.

 

[publius]

Lots of things Paul probably does, but we part ways on foreign policy and likely the war on drugs.

How about the authority which underlies the war on drugs?

I thought you said you were a Rhenquist kind of guy. Rhenquist concurred with O'Connor's dissent in the Raich case: a homegrown cannabis plant (or machine gun) for personal use is not interstate commerce.

Paul is the only candidate who agrees with Rhenquist on that important point. Are you a Rhenquist/Paul guy, or are we going to have to talk some more about interstate commerce?

 

[PaladinX13]

Stage 2's CIA reasoning, once again.
"I don't know what the CIA's doing but since we're not being attacked, they must be doing their jobs. I have no evidence that they are, but that's enough for me." (nevermind, how they've been rendered impotent in the field of intelligence by Executive order)

Meanwhile, utterly and completely ignoring their criminal acts (or in fact ENDORSING them- "hands dirty", "all options", etc).

If a criminal murders someone it DOESN'T MATTER how good they are at their white-collar job, how loving a father they are, or all the other myriad of details you're delightfully ignorant of. They are held accountable for their criminal acts. To date, the CIA just says, "Oops, our bad, how embarrassing!" and continues on until the next exposed scandal. The existence of a failure/success rate is IRRELEVANT to their criminal acts and pretending otherwise IS "ends justifies the means" thinking. That is, the elite can ban guns but their bodyguards own them, murder people so long as your contribution to society is greater, or get away with embezzlement as long as you have enough money to put into the system. This kind of thinking has been proven to be pervasive in your views which is why our actual freedom is eroding today.

 

[Titan6]

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

Paul never said that.

The host did. Paul tried to explain but was cut off. I hope he has said it somewhere at some time because I would like it to be true.

If he never said it your entire arguement is pointless. It is like several men fighting it out in dark alley at 3am on a Saturday night because a woman blinked at the group of them. But if she never winked what are we talking about here?

If you've read my argument you'd know that I haven't been advocating for the CIA not to be changed, or even for it to stay. What I have been advocating is that if changes are going to be made, they shouldn't be done until all the cards are on the table. You can't judge something with only half its record (or likely 1/100th in this case).

If you have read my arguement you would know I am pretty much saying the same thing. I am just on the other side of the fence from you. I might also know a little bit about what I am talking about as well.

And yet the military will somehow be better at policing this than what we have now? We couldnt even square away a stupid minimum security prison and you think that because the military is involved all the abuses of power will go away?

Might want to look at that again. Guess who was neck deep there?

The president is still the commander in chief and the joint chiefs still are beholden to him. As a result there is absolutely no guarantee that the problems which we have now would go away by simply dumping this on the DOD.

Unity of intel effort. One of the reccomendations of the 911 panel to eliminate another 911.

You're missing the point. If Paul's ideas were universal, then he would have had a far more prosperous political career and the libertarian party wouldn't be some piddly little organization. This has nothing to do with whether Paul's ideas are right or wrong, merely that they are not "universal" as Paladin suggested.

Truer words you have never written. However the point Paladin is trying to make is that most people do not want freedom and liberty either for themselves or others. Most men live lives of quiet desperation (HDT). By way of example you, yourself do not see the bill of rights as applying universally to everyone which is quite telling given your far right neocon stance.

 

[PaladinX13]

I've purposely ignored this until now, but it's getting ridiculous... Stage 2 is huffing and puffing about something where he lacks reading comprehension. The exact quote from this post:

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

In grammar school we learned that means, "If Paul's foreign policy stance is (certainly) not universal, it is [at least] respectable."

It does NOT mean "Paul's stance is certainly universal". This is basic English. To the exclusion of Paul's stance being universally accepted- which it certainly isn't- it still has merit and is a debatable issue of state (bureaucracy, etc.) rather than a make or break polarizing and politicized issue. That is, it is ABSURD to demand sound-bite answers to a deep and complex issue of state with sound-bite questions... the best one can do, in a brief and non-exhaustive way, is to show the principles that will guide the process.

Ranting and raving "How are you going to do it?!" is not something answered in sound-bites and not trivially answered, what can be and has been presented is "WHY one would do it." The ideals that drive the process towards to goal. Let me say that AGAIN. The IDEALS that drive the process... NOT "a goal to be reached by any means necessary."

The reason to focus on Stage 2's integrity, is to see if he really cares EITHER WAY (whether a comprehensive plan exists, what the reasons are, etc.) it is evident that he does not. Stage 2's approach to the CIA could be applied to ANY bureaucracy and used as the excuse for persistent big government. If we can't aim to dismantle something as knowingly corrupt as the CIA then one is basically assenting to any and all current and future government corruption.

I leave you with this excerpt:

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

These were the words of JFK shortly after using the CIA for the Bay of Pigs (later The Cuban Project, etc). It begins by talking about the ideals this nation aspires to, then slyly asks the Press to abandon those ideals in the name of war-time security. It talks of the Soviet threat, but then asks that America become the very same. This terrifying double-speak and hypocrisy is pervasive in the CIA and those who wield it. It's not a matter of party, but they will ask you to give up your rights "in the name of" whatever they need to swear on.

 

[STAGE 2]

Paul is the only candidate who agrees with Rhenquist on that important point. Are you a Rhenquist/Paul guy, or are we going to have to talk some more about interstate commerce?

The feds have the ultimate authority to ban things in interstate commerce. Someone growing pot in their back yard for personal consumption isn't in interstate commerce.

That said most people who use pot have no idea where their pot comes from and given the large amount of marijuana that comes in from other countries that is undoubtedly in interstate commerce, there is a presumption that the pot is contraband unless the folks can prove otherwise.

However this is either here nor there.

Stage 2's CIA reasoning, once again.
"I don't know what the CIA's doing but since we're not being attacked, they must be doing their jobs. I have no evidence that they are, but that's enough for me." (nevermind, how they've been rendered impotent in the field of intelligence by Executive order)

Not even close. BECAUSE we don't have much information at all about what the CIA does we don't know if they are doing thier jobs well or not. The CIA might be a complete disaster, or it might be highly successful despite its shortcomings.

You don't know, I don't know, and Paul doesn't know. I'm not opposed to the idea of replacng it, I'm opposed to a course of action that has the potential to cripple our national security without knowing if its even warranted or not.

I know you understand this, and I shouldn't have to keep spoon feeding you. However I know that without fail you will once again post yet another strawman that is completely apart from anything I've said.

If you can't understand the distinction between what you wrote and my argument, I really don't think you should be sitting here arguing in the first place.

If a criminal murders someone it DOESN'T MATTER how good they are at their white-collar job, how loving a father they are, or all the other myriad of details you're delightfully ignorant of. They are held accountable for their criminal acts. To date, the CIA just says, "Oops, our bad, how embarrassing!" and continues on until the next exposed scandal. The existence of a failure/success rate is IRRELEVANT to their criminal acts and pretending otherwise IS "ends justifies the means" thinking. That is, the elite can ban guns but their bodyguards own them, murder people so long as your contribution to society is greater, or get away with embezzlement as long as you have enough money to put into the system. This kind of thinking has been proven to be pervasive in your views which is why our actual freedom is eroding today.

And by this criteria, pretty much every single federal agency should be abolished. Surely the FBI and ATF present a greater harm to Americans than the CIA since they deal primarily with american citizens. Shouldn't they be abolished as well?

Ranting and raving "How are you going to do it?!" is not something answered in sound-bites and not trivially answered, what can be and has been presented is "WHY one would do it." The ideals that drive the process towards to goal. Let me say that AGAIN. The IDEALS that drive the process... NOT "a goal to be reached by any means necessary."

Forgive me. I wasn't aware that asking about how one would revamp our intelligence community was ranting and raving. I find it hillarious that when people ask "how are you going to change social security" its considered to be a serious question by potentially effected people. However when I ask about how one will get rid of the CIA, its hysterics.

Up until now I've let most of your personal jabs slide but I'm going to ask you to lay off with the integrity business. You don't know me, who I am or what I do for a living. Maybe just mabye there is a possibility that I have some insight into this that you don't. Either way I haven't said anything personal towards you but you have consistently done so towards me. I draw the line at my integrity.

The reason to focus on Stage 2's integrity, is to see if he really cares EITHER WAY (whether a comprehensive plan exists, what the reasons are, etc.) it is evident that he does not. Stage 2's approach to the CIA could be applied to ANY bureaucracy and used as the excuse for persistent big government. If we can't aim to dismantle something as knowingly corrupt as the CIA then one is basically assenting to any and all current and future government corruption.

Once again you've got selective hearing. Nowhere have I said the CIA doesn't need to be fixed. Nowhere have I said that the CIA shouldn't ultimately be replaced. What I have said is that Ron Paul doesn't have enough information do even begin diagnosing the problem. As a doctor he wouldn't prescribe medication properform surgery without a thorough examination. The same should apply here.

These were the words of JFK shortly after using the CIA for the Bay of Pigs (later The Cuban Project, etc). It begins by talking about the ideals this nation aspires to, then slyly asks the Press to abandon those ideals in the name of war-time security. It talks of the Soviet threat, but then asks that America become the very same. This terrifying double-speak and hypocrisy is pervasive in the CIA and those who wield it. It's not a matter of party, but they will ask you to give up your rights "in the name of" whatever they need to swear on.

So if the papers decided not to comply Kennedy would have had them wacked? I don't think so. There is no violation of anyone's rights if the government ASKS someone to voluntarily stop excercising them. If the media complied then it was their choice. I don't recall any editors being shipped off to gulags.

Thats the difference between us and them. Again a subtle distinction that you seem to have run right over.

 

[STAGE 2]

Paul never said that.

The host did. Paul tried to explain but was cut off. I hope he has said it somewhere at some time because I would like it to be true.

Yes he did. Maher even asked him a second time to clarify and Paul affirmed it. He was cut off during his explanation of how he was going to do it. However he di say that he would completely get rid of the CIA.

If you have read my arguement you would know I am pretty much saying the same thing. I am just on the other side of the fence from you. I might also know a little bit about what I am talking about as well.

So if you agree that changes shouldn't be made until all the facts are known, how can you agree with a course of action when the only thing than any of us are certian about is that we don't know nearly enough about what the CIA has been up to.

Might want to look at that again. Guess who was neck deep there?

In a word, the military. This happened at their prison under their watch and wth their personel. The same thing is just as likely to happen even if Paul's plan is instituted. The military doesn't remotely have enough personel to staff an entirely new agency, thus a large portion of any new agency will be staffed by civilians or other federal officers. Regardless of their title, they will still be running the show, and the military will still be doing the grunt work. Same result.

However the point Paladin is trying to make is that most people do not want freedom and liberty either for themselves or others. Most men live lives of quiet desperation (HDT). By way of example you, yourself do not see the bill of rights as applying universally to everyone which is quite telling given your far right neocon stance.

Ah neocon. My favorite word. Simple question. When the framers wrote the constitution do you think that they intended for it to apply to everyone in every nation?

I fully agree that as individuals we all retain certian rights simply by virtue of the fact that we exist. However due to the fact that we live in societies and under governments, if some decide that these rights are less important, its not for me to grant them. If others are too meek to fight then its not for me to stand up for them. I care about my country and my rights. What's going on in australia, croatia or china with respect to fundamental rights is no concern of mine.

 

[Titan6]

Yes he did. Maher even asked him a second time to clarify and Paul affirmed it. He was cut off during his explanation of how he was going to do it. However he di say that he would completely get rid of the CIA.

You must be looking at a different video than I am. Please post something in writing showing where Paul said he wanted to get rid of the CIA. Like I said I want to see it and I hope he said it but I can't find it.

So if you agree that changes shouldn't be made until all the facts are known, how can you agree with a course of action when the only thing than any of us are certian about is that we don't know nearly enough about what the CIA has been up to.

The same way as you. I just have the opposite POV from you because of what is known.

In a word, the military. This happened at their prison under their watch and wth their personel.

Denial is a river in Africa.

The same thing is just as likely to happen even if Paul's plan is instituted. The military doesn't remotely have enough personel to staff an entirely new agency, thus a large portion of any new agency will be staffed by civilians or other federal officers. Regardless of their title, they will still be running the show, and the military will still be doing the grunt work. Same result.

Actually using widely available estimates the US military is 100 times the size of the cia. So they would have to grow 1%. Maybe they can handle it maybe not. But again you don't know. And If nothing will change and we have the same result why are you so opposed? Oh, that's right you are a conservative... I get it...

 

[Titan6]

Ah neocon. My favorite word. Simple question. When the framers wrote the constitution do you think that they intended for it to apply to everyone in every nation?

They meant for it to apply to all freemen. You will note that at the time they did not consider blacks and natives to be "full" people. Over time the document has evolved quite a bit and now we have a wide umbrella. These are supposed to be inalienable rights. If you study history you will see the constitution was a very successful attempt by a small group of people to impose a system on a diverse majority. So I ask you a simple question; Do you think that they did not believe everyone in every nation should have these rights?

I fully agree that as individuals we all retain certian rights simply by virtue of the fact that we exist. However due to the fact that we live in societies and under governments, if some decide that these rights are less important, its not for me to grant them. If others are too meek to fight then its not for me to stand up for them. I care about my country and my rights. What's going on in australia, croatia or china with respect to fundamental rights is no concern of mine.

LOL- I got tears in my eyes on that one. On the one hand you "don't know" if we should keep the cia going around sticking it's nose in everywhere representing our interests and "protecting" our country, and on the other let everyone else rot! So you don't advocate the policy of cia intervention in say afganistan after the soviet invasion but you still think that they should do it? This is a very difficult position to defend. At least you are quite clear in it being all about you.

 

[STAGE 2]

So I ask you a simple question; Do you think that they did not believe everyone in every nation should have these rights?

I think the framers believed that all men had certian inalienable rights, but they clearly did not intend for the constitution to apply to anyone other than americans.

LOL- I got tears in my eyes on that one. On the one hand you "don't know" if we should keep the cia going around sticking it's nose in everywhere representing our interests and "protecting" our country, and on the other let everyone else rot! So you don't advocate the policy of cia intervention in say afganistan after the soviet invasion but you still think that they should do it? This is a very difficult position to defend. At least you are quite clear in it being all about you.

There is a HUGE difference between going around the world and propping up democracies for the sake of it, and engaging in clandestine operations because its in our national interest.

For example, the entire Iraq mess could have been solved (assuming we had the resources and ignoring the EO) with a single man or small group of people. Instead we had to send hundreds of thousands of troops after Saddam.

Again another subtle distinction that is ever so crucial.

 

[fearless leader]

Same Ron Paul?

Is this the same Ron Paul from Army Green Beret fame?
It would be nice to have a candidate who actually understands the military and their purpose.

 

[Titan6]

I think the framers believed that all men had certian inalienable rights, but they clearly did not intend for the constitution to apply to anyone other than americans.

I said BILL OF RIGHTS not constitution subtle difference and all... Of course the constitution only applies to the US, how could it be otherwise... But you keep saying it....

For example, the entire Iraq mess could have been solved (assuming we had the resources and ignoring the EO) with a single man or small group of people. Instead we had to send hundreds of thousands of troops after Saddam.

Again another subtle distinction that is ever so crucial.

See now you are getting closer to Paul's way of thinking.... I think the only difference now would be who you would have sent and to do what...

 

[Titan6]

Is this the same Ron Paul from Army Green Beret fame?
It would be nice to have a candidate who actually understands the military and their purpose.

I don't know about the Green Berets but he was a flight surgeon in Vietnam.

 

[PaladinX13]

And by this criteria, pretty much every single federal agency should be abolished. Surely the FBI and ATF present a greater harm to Americans than the CIA since they deal primarily with american citizens. Shouldn't they be abolished as well?

Took you long enough (although, you're completely wrong about the "greater harm", but again you betray your dehumanizing values that go to the core of your lack of integrity... that crimes against American citizens are somehow "greater" than crimes against any other people... nevermind magnitude or scale, just the TYPE of crimes such as slaughter and tyranny supported by our CIA).

What constitutes legitimate government authority and who gave them that power?

Limited government MEANS limited government, you've been brainwashed to think "voting my party means [at least] a slower expansion of government"... but honestly, I doubt that's what you even want, you want more "options", more black-ops, expansion of the least accountable branch of government. And you CELEBRATE that they're unaccountable.

Again, if you're a criminal, it doesn't matter if your day job performance is great (and in fact we don't even know, instead we see major foul-ups even in their legitimate role). That doesn't excuse your criminal behavior like you've been hand-waving away (and again, endorsing even) and completely compromises the rest of the system.

 

[Titan6]

And by this criteria, pretty much every single federal agency should be abolished. Surely the FBI and ATF present a greater harm to Americans than the CIA since they deal primarily with american citizens. Shouldn't they be abolished as well?

Oh man how did I miss that. Yes, abolish the ATF. That is also one of Paul's positions. FBI? The Feds do need some kind of law enforcement arm. The military is generally restricted from operating in the US. Not sure what the answer is here.

 

[DomMega]

I support Ron Paul 100%, I haven't found anything he's said that I don't really agree with yet.

 

[PaladinX13]

The FBI's actions are largely held accountable when they do screw-up, unlike the CIA who's very nature makes it practically impossible to do anything but chastise figure-heads.

 

[TrybalRage]

Just remember that if you support the man, throw him a couple bucks. Obama's campaign has caught up to Hillary's and supposedly the majority of his donations were under $100 per person.

Get the word out, tell your friends. I think this guy appeals to the majority, they just don't know him yet.

 

[STAGE 2]

but again you betray your dehumanizing values that go to the core of your lack of integrity... that crimes against American citizens are somehow "greater" than crimes against any other people...

I guess this is where our problem lies. I value American lives more than others. I am far more offended when a crime is comitted against an american than I am against someone from another country. I fully expect that anyone from another nation feels similarly about their own countrymen. What you call a lack of integrity I call a sense of allegiance.

No doubt you will read this to mean that I'm for the wholesale killing of anyone outside the US or some other ridiculous extension but thats simply not the case.

Our government has an obligation to us and no one else. As such, whether other people in the world are being deprived of their freedoms of speech, religion, or right to bear arms is neither our responsibility or our concern.

As an analogy, I'm responsible for my family. Its my duty to ensure their safety and to provide for them. I think that anyone who is the head of a household should assume these responsibilities, but no doubt there are many who fall very short. Its not my job to fix these situations, and because I don't doesn't mean that I condone these actions.

The same applies to our government. Because we had the foresight to reduce our fundamental rights to writing doesn't mean that others will share in this.

 

[Titan6]

STAGE 2 - That is a very non neocon post. You need to be careful as you might lose your status.

Non-interventionism is the cornerstone of Paul's foreign policy. If that is what you are advocating than I applaud you.

The issues are little deeper though. I agree we should not have to fight someone's battle for freedom for them to try to install a mini-america everywhere we go when the people there do not want it. I also believe that we need to both foster freedom everywhere and protect it where it already exists in the nations friendly to us. These things are good for us and the world.

When our government violates human rights in the name of our own self interest we are not doing that.

 

[PaladinX13]

Non-neocon or not, it's irrelevant to his earlier comments.

We were not talking about responsibility but crime.

You're responsible to your family and to no other, just as the government's priority is to this nation and not others. But should you commit a crime and abuse another person... it doesn't matter if it's someone in your household, your neighbor, or a stranger on the street, crime is crime.

In the case of the CIA, it's a non-issue because they've done both. Whether kidnappings, drugging, and mind-control experiments here or supporting slaughter abroad.

But it's disingenuous to switch the subject to responsibility over crime. Just as it's disingenuous for the government to "ask" for Press support, but then to pressure, threaten, and imprison journalists in the course of investigations (LeakGate, for example, and the relevancy of JFK's "prophetic" statements).

 

[STAGE 2]

Well I suppose I should just be thankful that Paul has as much chance of winning the Presidency as the tooth fairy.

 

[PaladinX13]

True colors shown at last?

Hardly. The same stripes we've all seen since the beginning.

Just goes to show he can't keep up the facade no matter how thin (that there is any- say- thought behind his criticism... instead it's just mad-dog attack reflex). As in the beginning, you do a better job of exposing yourself than anything I say. Lovely that the political process belongs to people like yourself.

 

[STAGE 2]

Just goes to show he can't keep up the facade no matter how thin (that there is any- say- thought behind his criticism... instead it's just mad-dog attack reflex). As in the beginning, you do a better job of exposing yourself than anything I say.

He's never been my candidate for a variety of reasons. I have no fascade to keep. I think Pauls views are irresponsible at best. Feel free to disagree, but its ridiculous to thing that because I disagree with you of Paul I'm somehow less of a person.

Lovely that the political process belongs to people like yourself.

Better people like me than people like you. You are able to sit here and enjoy your freedoms because better men have taken it upon themselves to do things which most don't want to see or hear. They don't ask for recognition or praise, merely the ability to do their job. And yet you would deny them even this.

In a world of complete uncertianty where things are shades of gray, you demand perfection. Its clear that you've never had any kind of experience with these people.

Good luck on election day

 

[publius]

The feds have the ultimate authority to ban things in interstate commerce. Someone growing pot in their back yard for personal consumption isn't in interstate commerce.

That said most people who use pot have no idea where their pot comes from and given the large amount of marijuana that comes in from other countries that is undoubtedly in interstate commerce, there is a presumption that the pot is contraband unless the folks can prove otherwise.

However this is either here nor there.

On the contrary, someone growin pot in his back yard for personal use IS in interstate commerce. He can be arrested by the feds, can't he? Under what authority? That's right, the commerce clause.

If it's growing in the back yard, you have a pretty good idea where it came from, don't you? Doesn't the root system prove that it didn't come from out of state, but grew right there?

You can't have it both ways. If you agree with the drug war, you must agree with the authority under which it is being waged, and that means agreeing with the Supreme Court in the Wickard and Raich cases. Homegrown wheat or cannabis for personal consumption IS in interstate commerce, according to drug warriors.

You also can't dismiss the application of the commerce clause to, as Justice Thomas said, "virtually anything" as "either here nor there," as if it's not an important point. For those who believe in limited government, the clause which gives the feds power over homegrown wheat, cannabis or machine guns, along with guns carried too near to schools, rape, indigenous California toads, and "virtually anything" else is a very important concern.

If you disagree with Paul on the drug war, you are agreeing that a homegrown cannabis plant for personal use IS interstate commerce, because that is the current state of the law, and that is how the commerce clause is being used. I disagree with that interpretation of the Constitution, and don't believe the commerce clause gives the feds that kind of power. Without an expansive interpretation of the commerce clause, they can't have that kind of power. There is only ONE candidate who wants to pull the rug out from under federal power by examining how we treat the commerce clause, and it's Dr. Paul. If you really believe that "Someone growing pot in their back yard for personal consumption isn't in interstate commerce," you should at least consider voting in a way consistent with your beliefs about this important source of federal power.