Just watched Ron Paul on Meet the Press

To me the reason for federal control seems pretty clear. The cities and states are total fuckups at it.
But they're not. When states are in control of the education system the people of those states are better able to control the quality. What makes you think the federal government has improved any of the problems you mentioned?

Even the No Child Left Behind program has made things worse because schools that don't score as well get less money.
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.
And that major change would be to give control back to the states. The DoE has been in control since 1979 and education in America has only gotten worse. They haven't improved anything. At best all they've done is wasted money and at worse they've actually caused the decline.

Cities and states aren't the ones making those bad decisions you're talking about. That's the fed responsible for making everyone believe that somehow money is the problem. Again, private schools offer better education for less money per student. School choice should be implemented to foster competition among the public institutions but at the very least the states should have control of it.

Why? Because it's the law of the land. If the country feels that the federal government should have authority over education (and it won't, there are way too many states out there that know they could do a much better job) then there should be a constitutional amendment to make it legal. Anything less is subverting the very principles of our government's framework.

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.
Breaking the cycles of poverty is great but you can't do that by giving those in poverty government checks and you can't improve education by giving control of a school in LA to a politician three thousand miles away in DC.

[youtubevid]Bx4pN-aiofw[/youtubevid]
 
So now you're just arguing for the fun of it?

You're saying he said those very words but you haven't shown me an actual quote. :p I'm arguing because I'm right and trying to correct your opinion on the guy.

You're jumping on this "abolish the cia/fbi" sound byte without putting any thought into it.
 
You're saying he said those very words but you haven't shown me an actual quote. :p I'm arguing because I'm right and trying to correct your opinion on the guy.

You're jumping on this "abolish the cia/fbi" sound byte without putting any thought into it.

No, you agreed with me because you know its right. Tim Russert had the quote on Meet the Press and Paul didn't challenge it. Why are you?
 
No, you agreed with me because you know its right. Tim Russert had the quote on Meet the Press and Paul didn't challenge it. Why are you?

then if you're going to quote, quote properly :p

He did challenge it. He explained himself so that people would stop pretending that he's suggesting having no federal law enforcement and no foreign intelligence gathering.

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

And again, if you read past the first sentence of his response you'll get a perfectly clear and rational explanation.

It's like a candidate saying we're going to abolish the EPA because it has been inefficient and has done more to harm the environment than help it and replace it with a better organization. He wanted to get rid of those specific agencies not just because of their dubious authority to even exist but because of their crimes.

You keep arguing this sound byte like it has any relevance whatsoever. Not only was it a platform from decades ago but you're misrepresenting it as this idea that he doesn't want to conduct foreign intelligence (for the record, the CIA does very little intel gathering compared to the Defense Intelligence Agency, a perfectly constitutional organization with a much bigger budget and far greater oversight).

What the hell is so wrong with wanting to run the government according to the letter of the law?
 
Last edited:
then if you're going to quote, quote properly :p

He did challenge it. He explained himself so that people would stop pretending that he's suggesting having no federal law enforcement and no foreign intelligence gathering.



And again, if you read past the first sentence of his response you'll get a perfectly clear and rational explanation.

It's like a candidate saying we're going to abolish the EPA because it has been inefficient and has done more to harm the environment than help it and replace it with a better organization. He wanted to get rid of those specific agencies not just because of their dubious authority to even exist but because of their crimes.

You keep arguing this sound byte like it has any relevance whatsoever. Not only was it a platform from decades ago but you're misrepresenting it as this idea that he doesn't want to conduct foreign intelligence (for the record, the CIA does very little intel gathering compared to the Defense Intelligence Agency, a perfectly constitutional organization with a much bigger budget and far greater oversight).

What the hell is so wrong with wanting to run the government according to the letter of the law?

Watch about 3 minutes in...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgTqSu-ZVFM"]YouTube - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 part 2 of 4[/ame]

Are both you and he unfamiliar with the definition of 'abolish'? It doesn't mean rebuild or adjust now and it didn't 20 years ago. So if changing those organizations was REALLY his plan, then I REALLY don't want him in office. We already have a President in office who doesn't have a basic grasp of the English language, I seriously doubt we need a second.
 
Watch about 3 minutes in...
YouTube - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 part 2 of 4

Are both you and he unfamiliar with the definition of 'abolish'? It doesn't mean rebuild or adjust now and it didn't 20 years ago. So if changing those organizations was REALLY his plan, then I REALLY don't want him in office. We already have a President in office who doesn't have a basic grasp of the English language, I seriously doubt we need a second.

I didn't suggest it means changing, I said that abolishment of those agencies would lead to replacement by different agencies. Same tasking orders but with new people and organization that are clear of all the wrong-doings committed by the two in question.


besides, they weren't even his quotes :lol: they were quotes from other journalists

he even said right after that "I would not abolish their functions"

He wouldn't get rid of intelligence gathering or federal law enforcement. He has never suggested that.
 
Last edited:
I didn't suggest it means changing, I said that abolishment of those agencies would lead to replacement by different agencies. Same tasking orders but with new people and organization that are clear of all the wrong-doings committed by the two in question.


besides, they weren't even his quotes :lol: they were quotes from other journalists

So if the CIA and FBI get replaced, who exactly will be working for the new organizations?

Oh, thats right, the same people.
 
So if the CIA and FBI get replaced, who exactly will be working for the new organizations?

Oh, thats right, the same people.

The majority of the agents and officers in those organizations have done nothing but perform their jobs honorably. Of course they would have jobs. But the people in charge, the managers and directors that conduct torture and warrant-less searches, that implement policies that are disastrous to national security as well as domestic law enforcement would be gone.

And again, he has clearly stated time and time again that it's not in his current platform. There is much greater oversight on both of those agencies today so he's not gunning for them like he was when they were guilty of spying on Americans and overthrowing democratic governments around the world.
 
The majority of the agents and officers in those organizations have done nothing but perform their jobs honorably. Of course they would have jobs. But the people in charge, the managers and directors that conduct torture and warrant-less searches, that implement policies that are disastrous to national security as well as domestic law enforcement would be gone.

And again, he has clearly stated time and time again that it's not in his current platform. There is much greater oversight on both of those agencies today so he's not gunning for them like he was when they were guilty of spying on Americans and overthrowing democratic governments around the world.

I'd like to see these where these magical intelligence gathering people would be grown if the FBI and CIA were abolished replaced by other better agengies!
 
Where are these magical middle and upper management guys coming from? I'm assuming that's who you're talking about abolishing, right?
promoting experienced field officers, analysts and investigators from within? using people from one of the other dozen or so intelligence agencies in the country?

what do you think happens when those guys retire or get fired now?

And once again: He has stated repeatedly that it's NOT PART OF HIS CURRENT CAMPAIGN
 
Last edited:
jackbauer_narrowweb__300x373,0.jpg
 
promoting experienced field officers, analysts and investigators from within? using people from one of the other dozen or so intelligence agencies in the country?

what do you think happens when those guys retire or get fired now?

And once again: He has stated repeatedly that it's NOT PART OF HIS CURRENT CAMPAIGN

No, but it was. It may not be anymore, but thats simply because abolishing the FBI and CIA is an idiotic idea. -WAFFLER- Don't give me that BS about there being more oversight now either while they perform warrantless wiretaps and have secret prisons around the world.