Same Horse,Different Rider!
The words of the Right Hon.Hubert Ingraham PM of the Bahamas when he became Primeminister in '92!
He knew then,that with no change in the Civil Service he would actually be the proverbial Donkey on the Hill.
It's the Civil Servants who govern,not POTUS,Congress or Senate!

Incorrect. The man has been at this for almost 30 years. There's no rational reason to doubt his sincerity or integrity. All that he's said about the various "conspiracies" you mention is that he's demanded transparency in government and adherence to Constitutional law.

He has stated that FEMA has power which goes beyond Constitutional limits, which plays right into the hands of conspiracy theorists. Yet he has not explained this. His demands for disclosure and transparency promote a distrust in government. As you said, he's been at this for 30 years, so to make such a statement backed by such demands infers that he either knows or suspects something.

So where does he stand? Is this just calculated rhetoric being used to gain votes from a specific demographic or does he have an ulterior motive? I doubt he's really doing it just to put certain issues to bed.

As I said, Gingrich is sure to pick up on this once the campaigns are in full swing. That does not bode well for Ron Paul because it will make him appear less genuine to a much larger demographic. Therefore, it is a hurdle which Paul will need to overcome. It's just the kind of obstacle that causes most candidates to flounder late in a campaign, just as "flip-flopping" ruined John Kerry's campaign.

Truth is, Ron Paul knows that he cannot force transparency and full disclosure without heightening public distrust of government. So he has to stir the pot to a such a level that the government not only feels the heat, but can no longer ignore it. I don't completely disagree with him there, but it's very dangerous to do from a political angle. He's taking a huge risk that can backfire. I believe Gingrich is savvy enough, and connected well-enough, to force it to backfire on Paul. I could be proven wrong come next September, but this is what I foresee.

Thank God for the U.S.A. because in another country, if RP was caught doing this, he would either be imprisoned or executed.

I agree with something another person mentioned: I hope Ron Paul's movement carries over to Congressional elections. A shift in policy- and law-making would be more beneficial than Paul winning the Presidential election. It would also prevent the movement from dying out should Paul lose either the nomination or election. That is what we need if change is to really happen. As Conrad pointed out, it's the Civil Service that needs to change. It's easier for several people to force that change than it is for one man at the top. Everything needs a foundation, and like-minded people in Congressional seats would help to build that foundation. That's something we need regardless of who wins the Presidency.

All I can say on this is that you are very uniformed on RP. You must do very little research on the man and his views to hold these opinions. They are your choice, and I will not condemn for them, but having them you would think might incite your own investigation into them more.

There is much info out there. Lauds from scholars and noted economists, Presidents and fellow statesmen, writers and columnists.

Whatever questions, concerns you may have, I'm sure (since the good Dr has always been an open book.... if you don't lie, you have nothing to hide) your answer is covered somewhere in his bios.

I'm not aware of the details of what RP has or has not claimed, but if something is true, or you believe it is true, maybe the truth of the statement is more important than whose hands it plays into.




I thought you didn't support him? You just keep complimenting him.

Oh, maybe you meant 'an irrational distrust' rather than 'a healthy and appropriate distrust'. You should only trust your government to the extent that the individuals will likely face negative consequences for violating that trust.



You are speaking of 'the process whereby', and I don't disagree. But in the end, if anyone increases our government's transparency or disclosure, this could easily have the net effect of increasing our trust in the government.

Hoard Gold Now!

I will not vote for a Republican that attacks another Republican in a primary race. WIth that said the only one I am able to vote for is Gingrich, since everyone else is caught up in the attack process.

Hell your precious Ron Paul spent 9 Million Dollars in attack ad's against Newt and Romney now that right there shows desperation of a man who will not and can not ever win.

What THAT shows is he's looking out for uninformed Americans.... like you, telling what the MSM won't!!
************

"When Ron Paul puts up a commercial blistering Speaker Gingrich, it's going to have an impact," said Bob Vander Plaats, a conservative leader in Iowa who has not made an endorsement. "Newt knew it was coming — the question is whether he can withstand it and respond. If not, he's going to slip."

The ads hit aspects of Gingrich's record he's been forced to address many times in debates, from his acceptance of $1.6 million from federal mortgage giant Freddie Mac to his support at one time for an individual health insurance mandate President Barack Obama adopted for his signature health care reform law. Gingrich has since repudiated the individual mandate but defends his work for Freddie Mac, arguing that the federal government has a role to play in helping people buy homes.

"I only chose to work with those whose values I shared," Gingrich said at a debate Thursday when pressed on his association with Freddie Mac.

But the tone and the many different voices in the ad convey an unmistakable message: Gingrich can't be trusted.

The hard-hitting ads reflect the new, more aggressive approach Paul has taken in this campaign compared to his 2008 effort, where he placed a distant fifth in Iowa's kickoff caucuses despite strong fundraising and a loyal grassroots base. This time, Paul's populist, libertarian message is resonating with voters across the political spectrum who are nervous about the economy and fed up with Wall Street bankers and Washington power brokers alike.
************************

Get a clue!

RP MONEYBOMB AT $2,639,636.75

You know, that's twice that someone has insisted I was very uninformed about Ron Paul. Truth is, I've been following him from the beginning. I'm just pointing out the one chink in his armor that in the right hands could bring him crashing down. In big elections this happens numerous times as the pool of candidates is whittled down. Like I said, I think it will come down to RP and Gingrich, and I see this as one of the larger ways Gingrich will ultimately attack Paul. Right now it's not worth his time because there are too many candidates. But when it gets down to just two, the game changes.

If you big RP supporters are so informed, then where do you see his weakness from a campaigning standpoint? You know, the weakness that could bring him crashing down? And please don't tell us he has no weakness. Every candidate has a weakness. Some have several. But opposing candidates will choose the weakness that has the right balance of safety and effectiveness when it comes to smear tactics. Otherwise it can, and sometimes does, backfire on them.

So rather than casting stones at me, why don't you stick to addressing the what I actually presented? I've already addressed his budget proposal in another thread. I read that proposal in detail, amongst other stances. So please don't assume I am "uninformed" based on just one issue. I don't need the condescension.



That is why I want to have Ron Paul take a clearer stance on his lesser known statements. I personally don't believe in most conspiracy theories, but Ron Paul accepted an invitation to be interviewed on the subject of FEMA camps. This is a fact. He knew in advance that he was going to be asked about FEMA camps. Therefore, I want to know if he truly believes in these things - which I don't - because it would heighten my concern. Now, if from his tenure he has inside knowledge that supports such a conspiracy theory, then I want to know because it would be a definite eye-opener that would make me take such ideas much more seriously. However, I think he accepted it as just another opportunity for publicity.



This is exactly what I meant. Some of the elements that he has won over to his cause tend toward having irrational or misguided distrust of government. That can be dangerous, especially if they become disenchanted with him. With some of what I have witnessed this election cycle, there is a potential powder keg building, and I hope to God it doesn't go off. It's also part of the reason why I am skeptical of Ron Paul. My gut tells me there's something more to him than he is showing. I want to lay that feeling to rest before I actually begin supporting him.

Some of his policies go too far IMO (as I mentioned when talking about his budget), and the "powder keg" groups I referred to have advocated such policies for decades - longer than Ron Paul has been in government. It's also disconcerting that these same groups have upped their activity since this election cycle began. So I'm wary and suspicious. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

The worst part is that I did not develop these concerns because of the media or other candidates. I developed it by following his own statements - from Ron Paul himself. Am I reading into things a bit? Of course I am, but I wouldn't be if it wasn't for Ron Paul himself.

What's irrational about distrusting government? We have a very long history of distrusting government in this country. (and the government has a long history of being untrustworthy!)

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-George Washington

Such quotes can be found throughout American political literature.

All I can really say is, if a government has shown time and time again a propensity to lie and be deceitful in the things they are doing, which our government very much has done if you just look at our own history (note: the one we are hardly ever told), then they really don't deserve nor should they get any of our trust.

If you had a friend who constantly hurt you and ****ed you over, would you keep them in your life or trust them with anything again? I'd tend to guess not, so why should the government be immune?

Why are Non-RP supporters always reaching for the negative aside from concocting solutions? That to me seems the true pattern throughout this thread. I could never understand that and yet they scratch their heads as things get worse in society.

I think for a lot of people it's easier to look at the problems without rocking the boat, so when someone does it's like: "Oh wait, that's gonna bring a big change, and that scares me". Nevermind that the change would be BETTER than what we have right now, it is just scary for some to accept, because then they'd have to change how they saw the world along with it.

In general, distrusting your government is very rational.

But that doesn't prevent specific forms of distrust from being completely irrational.

I'm picking random examples to illustrate the point, not intended to relate to this thread:

When the government wants to convince you to support a war, or to support the erosion of your rights, I think its time for healthy skepticism.

But when, say, the surgeon general places a warning label on cigarettes consistent with the consensus of the AMA and the majority of health professionals and related scientists everywhere... only the paranoid would see an evil mind control plot based on lies.

The government is not an individual, and should not be treated as such.

But I agree with your point, that we should not automatically assume anything claimed by a government official is true. We should also not assume it is false. This is where irrational distrust enters the picture - assuming government officials are lying for no better cause than... because they are government officials.

All I can say is that I've watched ALL the GOP debates and Ron Paul has my vote

No but the idea is the same, why should we trust them when time and time again they lie? It's like the boy who cries wolf.

So have I, he's the only clear candidate who stands out.

Yes, unless you want more of the same

I actually see why Ron stutters so much when he talks. He's so frustrated with trying to get the message out because he's one of the few politicians in congress who reads the acts and laws. Which is why he votes no on most for plausible reasons. Not to mention the moderators really only give him about 2 minutes PLUS the oh-so-obvious interruption. That's always fun to watch. I look at it this way, they let the children bicker with each other, then when Ron comes in, class is in session.