• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

^^ yes, the FBI does all that already.

And I see you are for big government and support the war on terrorism and the war on drugs. The first two issues you mentioned have no defined goals because any definition of winning would result in failure. Since there are no clearly defined goals, government agencies will pop up because they know they will stay in business as long as there are no clearly defined goals. New agendas can be created(that didn't need to be there at all) so it looks like more work needs to be done with new agences required to handle these new "threats."
Until people realize they don't need a unique federal agency for each social and security issue, then yes, we will need all those agencies. I feel no safer having all these agencies "protect" me than having one intelligence agency.
 
Last edited:
Ah so only one agency should be responsible for fightinging terrorism, drugs, cyber crime, helping local, state, agencies, enforce federal law, track down fugitives (why have the marshals?), white collar crime, look through intelligence coming in, combat the mafia, combat public corruption, collect intelligence, perform operations.....
Click to expand...

Most of these things can be handled at the local or state level. The sheer size of the American military juggernaut, combined with its invasive need to petrol the globe makes the United States a target. If this were not the case, we would not need so many agencies to protect the federal government and its interests. In the Middle East, they chant "America is the great satan," not "Minnesota is the great satan." Less federal bureaucracy and more attention to detail from better equipped state and local authorites would be a far more effective defense mechanism. The federal government should exist to protect the people from overreaching local powers within each of the states, not the other way around, as the case is currently.
 
The CIA is a threat to our national security - they destabilize nations and CREATE the threats of Al-Qaeda, etc al.
They are not a constitutional aspect of the government if they subvert national security.

They need to go away.
Click to expand...

Exactly, blowback is not just the consequences of the American military apparatus meddling with other countries, but more specifically the consequences from covert actions that the American people know nothing about, so when something happens, many people are left standing there wondering "What did we do?", "Why do THEY hate US?", which is fertile soil for propagandists and opinion shapers.

Besides, the CIA works for Wall-Street, not the American People.

CIA, Drugs, and Wall Street

C.I.A. & DRUGS

The first part of the following presentation by Mike Ruppert outlines the relationship between the CIA and Wallstreet quite well.

Watch

The same video also includes an interview with Ron Paul from 2001 talking about the Patriot Act.

Watch
 
Blacksoulman said:
^^ yes, the FBI does all that already.

And I see you are for big government and support the war on terrorism and the war on drugs. The first two issues you mentioned have no defined goals because any definition of winning would result in failure. Since there are no clearly defined goals, government agencies will pop up because they know they will stay in business as long as there are no clearly defined goals.
Click to expand...

Those points have no bearing on this. First, unless I missed it, Ron Paul isnt going to legalize all drugs so that need will still be there. (Whether or not I agree with it).

And as far as terrorism, other than just pulling out of the middle east like Paul wants to, he, again as far as I can tell, isnt going to stop watching out for them.

Therefore, why eliminate an agency thats involved in those if you're not going to stop doing it?


Blacksoulman said:
New agendas can be created(that didn't need to be there at all) so it looks like more work needs to be done with new agences required to handle these new "threats."
Until people realize they don't need a unique federal agency for each social and security issue, then yes, we will need all those agencies. I feel no safer having all these agencies "protect" me than having one intelligence agency.
Click to expand...


Ever wonder why there are many agencies? It's delegation of tasks. Look at your own state. It has State, County, and city law enforcement. Why have all those?

Well the county will run the jails, freeing up space (and money) for the cities. State usually cover the highways so that frees up units to do more important things in the city.

Also, the state has many more resources at its disposal to deal with things like robbery, murder, etc. that happen in small communities that dont have that ability.


Coolio said:
I don't need nor want the government to protect me from anything.
Click to expand...


Many people do. I think that should be pretty much the only task of government.
Next time you need the Police or Fire Department you wont call 911?
 
Jeebus Mic said:
Those points have no bearing on this. First, unless I missed it, Ron Paul isnt going to legalize all drugs so that need will still be there. (Whether or not I agree with it).

And as far as terrorism, other than just pulling out of the middle east like Paul wants to, he, again as far as I can tell, isnt going to stop watching out for them.

Therefore, why eliminate an agency thats involved in those if you're not going to stop doing it?





Ever wonder why there are many agencies? It's delegation of tasks. Look at your own state. It has State, County, and city law enforcement. Why have all those?

Well the county will run the jails, freeing up space (and money) for the cities. State usually cover the highways so that frees up units to do more important things in the city.

Also, the state has many more resources at its disposal to deal with things like robbery, murder, etc. that happen in small communities that dont have that ability.





Many people do. I think that should be pretty much the only task of government.
Next time you need the Police or Fire Department you wont call 911?
Click to expand...

I can't see Ron Paul thinking that the dea has any constitutional mandate.
We all know what he thinks of gov. w/out constitutional mandates.
 
"Ever wonder why there are many agencies? It's delegation of tasks. Look at your own state. It has State, County, and city law enforcement. Why have all those?"

Ron Paul is for States' Rights. I have no problem with state agencies. In fact, you are arguing for his position. The more difficult the problem, the more local the problem should be dealt with.

"Therefore, why eliminate an agency thats involved in those if you're not going to stop doing it? "

I mentioned those issues because the goal is to stop doing it, or at the very least, reduce resources to those issues.
 
Jeebus Mic, the fire department is a volunteer organization and I'll certainly call them if something is on fire. They aren't going to shoot me or arrest me or my friends or a victim in some incident. They're just there to save people and property. No harm in that.

Police on the other hand, do nothing positive for society. Any problem that can be dealt with by police can be dealt with more efficiently and honestly if the parties involved handle it themselves or both agree to allow a third party to mediate for them. The police are just thugs who feel they have a right to 'enforce the law', no matter what the social, moral, or economic cost.

Now maybe if the police were there to protect citizens against GROUPS and CORPORATIONS, they'd be great. But it's usually the other way around.
 
Jeebus Mic, actually Ron Paul will legalize all drugs. That's one of his major selling points.
 
kong said:
I can't see Ron Paul thinking that the dea has any constitutional mandate.
We all know what he thinks of gov. w/out constitutional mandates.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul, if he were actually elected, couldn't just rip the government apart- he'd have to deal with Congress. The most likely result of a Ron Paul presidency would be total gridlock in Washington, not a libertarian revolution.
 
Coolio said:
Jeebus Mic, actually Ron Paul will legalize all drugs. That's one of his major selling points.
Click to expand...

Ron paul would not legalize all drugs but make it a state issue. His personal opinion is that all drugs should be legalized but that doesnt mean that that is what would happen. Its very much the same with abortion. Personally he it totally against it, but he would make it a state issue.
 
Coolio said:
Jeebus Mic, actually Ron Paul will legalize all drugs. That's one of his major selling points.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul, or any president for that matter, couldn't legalize all drugs. The executive branch doesn't write laws, Congress does.
 
Regulation, Free Trade and Mexican Trucks

by Ron Paul

9/09/07

Another NAFTA nail is about to be hammered into the coffin Washington is building for the US economy. Within the next few days our borders will be opened to the Mexican trucking industry in an unprecedented way. A "pilot" program is starting which will allow trucks from Mexico to haul goods beyond the 25 mile buffer zone to any point in the United States . Officials claim this is being done with utmost oversight, but Americans still have their legitimate concerns. Rather than securing our borders, we seem to be providing more pores for illegal aliens, drug dealers, and terrorists to permeate.

Not only that, but the anti-competitive and burdensome yoke of over-regulation of our industry at home is about to send a lot more Americans to the unemployment lines. The American Trucking industry has been heavily regulated since 1935. The express purpose of The Motor Carrier Act was to eliminate competition through permitting, regulating tariff rates, even approving routes. American trucking companies have been fighting ever since for some relief from the substantial regulatory burdens placed on them. Regulatory compliance is the single most daunting barrier to entry, and eats up huge amounts of profit. Now, to add insult to injury, Mexican trucking companies, not subject to the same onerous standards, will be allowed to roll right in and squeeze American industry further. This will severely undermine the ability of American trucking companies to remain solvent.

The fact that this is being done in the name of free trade is disturbing. Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon. All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here. Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs – consumers do, in the form of higher prices. If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so.

Free trade is not the problem, and pseudo free trade is what is being offered in the wrongly named North American Free Trade Agreement and all its offshoots. The problem is a government-managed economy and the burdensome regulation that results. For our economy to remain competitive in the world, we must remember what it is to be truly free. We must lift the regulatory shackles threatening to sink our industries into oblivion. Free trade begins with freedom domestically, and we can't afford to lose that.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst090907.htm
 
m855, Ron Paul if given the chance would legalize drugs. Making it a state issue is the best a federal politician could do to legalize it.
 
Coolio said:
Jeebus Mic, the fire department is a volunteer organization and I'll certainly call them if something is on fire. They aren't going to shoot me or arrest me or my friends or a victim in some incident. They're just there to save people and property. No harm in that.

Police on the other hand, do nothing positive for society. Any problem that can be dealt with by police can be dealt with more efficiently and honestly if the parties involved handle it themselves or both agree to allow a third party to mediate for them. The police are just thugs who feel they have a right to 'enforce the law', no matter what the social, moral, or economic cost.

Now maybe if the police were there to protect citizens against GROUPS and CORPORATIONS, they'd be great. But it's usually the other way around.
Click to expand...


Wow, couple ignorant statments.

Might want to check into that. Fire Departmets, while some ARE volunteer, are govermnet agencies.

Also (GASP) there are volunteer police too.
 
Jeebus Mic said:
Wow, couple ignorant statments.

Might want to check into that. Fire Departmets, while some ARE volunteer, are govermnet agencies.

Also (GASP) there are volunteer police too.
Click to expand...

* state government agencies. We are not arguing against the need for state agencies. We are arguing against central departments that oversee all the state angencies. A central angency, uniting state departments, certainly sounds appealing and more efficient, but that central agency only gets in the way of state departments by adding more bureaucracy(rules and regulations).
 
The difference Jeebus, is that firemen don't carry guns, and they don't threaten me with violence or imprisonment when I don't do what they say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top