Just watched Ron Paul on Meet the Press

FlyNavy said:
What makes you think he isn't? It's not like he'll introduce a bill demanding term limits for everyone but him. How do you expect anyone to introduce term limits if those that think it's a good idea don't stick around long enough to support it?
Click to expand...

And has he even actually introduced that bill? If he did, it failed, yet he decides to continue. "Well its not in my platform." :rolleyes:

Sticking to the Constitution is about changing it. That was one of the clearly defined intentions of the framers. They knew full well that society would evolve and the Constitution would have to evolve with it. They gave us a method to make that happen because they wanted it to happen, they knew it was necessary.

Strict constructionism and amending the constitution are nor mutually exclusive nor have they ever been. It was a stupid question on Russert's part and he should be ashamed of pretending that he doesn't know the meaning of the term he threw out.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call that 'strict' then...

How do you think the system works? We all pay into the federal piggy bank, we all get money back. The problem is that some people get more money back than others, some people get far less. Yet there is nothing to suggest that he's earmarking more money for his district than it has paid in.

You're accusing him of taking kickbacks with absolutely zero evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Come on dude, you *can't* be that naive. I think we all know where earmarks and the like go. They go to people that helped them climb over everyone on their way to the top. You're a smart guy...

Twenty or thirty years ago and he clearly states that intelligence gathering and federal law enforcement are supported. Just because he would dismantle the CIA and FBI because of their many, MANY atrocities throughout their history doesn't mean he wouldn't support different agencies. The point still remains that he wants it to be in accordance with the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he says they are supported now, but they weren't 20-30 years ago by him. They may be bad, and I agree that clandestine operations should be stopped, but to totally abolish them is simply reckless.

You call Ron Paul an idiot but do you have a better candidate?
Click to expand...

Yes, Joe American. Anyone can have better common sense and understanding of the People than these career politicians do. Other than that, no. I could make the perfect candidate if I could Frankenstein the current candidates tho!
 
fly said:
And has he even actually introduced that bill? If he did, it failed, yet he decides to continue. "Well its not in my platform." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes, he's been pushing it for decades. Why on earth should he simply give up and leave office the first time it fails? How the hell is one going to improve the system if one simply gives up?
I wouldn't call that 'strict' then...
Click to expand...
:confused: Why not? It's directly in line with the intent of the framers. It's how they wanted it to work, it's how they wrote it and more importantly it's what all the states agreed upon when they ratified it.
Come on dude, you *can't* be that naive. I think we all know where earmarks and the like go. They go to people that helped them climb over everyone on their way to the top. You're a smart guy...
Click to expand...
No, you're confusing earmarks with pork barrel spending or kickbacks. Directing funds to one's district is directly in line with the Constitution.

You can't possibly think it's fair for his district to pay into the national treasury and then not get any of its money back. Now if he's demanding more money than its paid in, that's a different story but there is absolutely nothing suggesting that the money is going to individuals rather than to help his entire district.
Yeah, he says they are supported now, but they weren't 20-30 years ago by him. They may be bad, and I agree that clandestine operations should be stopped, but to totally abolish them is simply reckless.
Click to expand...
No, he says he didn't support those specific agencies. He did not say he didn't support intelligence gathering and federal law enforcement.
Yes, Joe American. Anyone can have better common sense and understanding of the People than these career politicians do. Other than that, no. I could make the perfect candidate if I could Frankenstein the current candidates tho!
Click to expand...
So in other words, no. :p
 
Valve1138 said:
Ross Perot!
Click to expand...

king.jpg


CAN I FINISH?
 
goddamnit he doesn't "waffle" :lol: he has the most consistent political record of any candidate and probably of any member of congress currently serving. how you guys take sound bytes from russert's intentionally loaded questions as evidence that he waffles is beyond me
 
FlyNavy said:
goddamnit he doesn't "waffle" :lol: he has the most consistent political record of any candidate and probably of any member of congress currently serving. how you guys take sound bytes from russert's intentionally loaded questions as evidence that he waffles is beyond me
Click to expand...

"I want to abolish the the FBI and CIA."

"That was 20 years ago, and is not part of my platform."
Hardly anyone is bothering to talk about his votes against resolutions calling on the government of Vietnam to release political prisoners and on the Arab League to help stop the killing in Darfur. Nor do they note that he said during his 1988 Libertarian bid for president that he would do away with the FBI and CIA, abolish the public schools, eliminate Social Security and all farm subsidies, and withdraw from NATO.
Click to expand...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/pauls_internet_campaign_wont_g.html
 
Last edited:
fly said:
"I want to abolish the the FBI and CIA."
Click to expand...
[citation needed]

:p
"That was 20 years ago, and is not part of my platform."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/pauls_internet_campaign_wont_g.html
Click to expand...

Yes, not part of his current platform. And again, he wanted to abolish those specific agencies because they were responsible for many bad things, possibly causing more harm than good. Deposing the Shah is as instrumental to the current state of mid east affairs - and ultimately 9/11 as well as the "war on terr" - as the assassination of Ferdinand was to World War 1.

At that the time the CIA should have been abolished and replaced with a more responsible agency. The FBI went over a decade with Hoover as the director and cultivated an environment that decades later when Paul made those comments it was still committing gross infringements on civil rights.

He has not once said that he would stop all federal law enforcement or intelligence gathering.
Valve1138 said:
And what exactly do we do without public schools? Good lord this guy sucks. I don't care if it was twenty years ago, at some point this guy was a moron.

Reason enough not to vote for him.
Click to expand...

Uh, private schools? Considering they routinely produce better results than public schools while spending less money per student. And don't give me crap about being too expensive because tax breaks and vouchers make them affordable for just about any family above the poverty line.

His point is that schools - public or private - should be run at a state level. If your state wants public schools, fine. But there is no reason another state should have have its education controlled by the federal government. What works for education in your state does not necessarily work for education in a state across the country.

Not to mention that it's still unconstitutional.
 
FlyNavy said:
[citation needed]

:p

Yes, not part of his current platform. And again, he wanted to abolish those specific agencies because they were responsible for many bad things, possibly causing more harm than good. Deposing the Shah is as instrumental to the current state of mid east affairs - and ultimately 9/11 as well as the "war on terr" - as the assassination of Ferdinand was to World War 1.

At that the time the CIA should have been abolished and replaced with a more responsible agency. The FBI went over a decade with Hoover as the director and cultivated an environment that decades later when Paul made those comments it was still committing gross infringements on civil rights.

He has not once said that he would stop all federal law enforcement or intelligence gathering.

Uh, private schools? Considering they routinely produce better results than public schools while spending less money per student. And don't give me crap about being too expensive because tax breaks and vouchers make them affordable for just about any family above the poverty line.

His point is that schools - public or private - should be run at a state level. If your state wants public schools, fine. But there is no reason another state should have have its education controlled by the federal government. What works for education in your state does not necessarily work for education in a state across the country.

Not to mention that it's still unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I went to private schools for most of my life and they are usually pretty costly
 
FlyNavy said:
Uh, private schools? Considering they routinely produce better results than public schools while spending less money per student. And don't give me crap about being too expensive because tax breaks and vouchers make them affordable for just about any family above the poverty line.
Click to expand...

Private schools do indeed rock. 98% of the time, making something better is as simple as introducing monetary competition for it.

FlyNavy said:
His point is that schools - public or private - should be run at a state level. If your state wants public schools, fine. But there is no reason another state should have have its education controlled by the federal government. What works for education in your state does not necessarily work for education in a state across the country.
Click to expand...

To me the reason for federal control seems pretty clear. The cities and states are total fuckups at it. The problem is how deeply poor education is wound into the fabric of problems that depressed areas suffer from. A city has shitty schools, so parents don't want to live there, so prices drop and it becomes a place that poor people live, which are also often the criminal and uneducated people, who give little money to the local school through taxes and are unhelpful to the process at home. Which leads to shitty schools and kids that don't even know how to speak fucking english, who become poor/criminal and have tons of kids. Which just recurs over itself ad nasuem. It's been happening for decades in places like inner city LA, and I simply don't see how one could expect it to get any better without major change.

We need to get over our idealism about teaching kids creativity ( :lol: ) and such; real reform from "out of town" in is needed to even just teach the next generation basic skills like reading, writing, algebra, and logical thinking. This is the best way to break the cycles of poverty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back