Goodbye Obama, Hello Ron Paul

[layoutshooter]

Leo,

the movie is called "the secert of my success.



Sorry layout, I would not want him involved.

Speaking out in public to me is a compromise of his principles and breaking of the trust to keep issues within the community, not bringing it to the public for any reason. The public doesn't always understand and because it can appear to be done to damage the president and sway policy for political reasons, it looks like another mark felt.

He was a private citizen at the time. No longer in government service.

His principles and his fiduciaryresponsibility have always been the same. His oath was to protect and defend the Constitution and his employer was the American People, not any one president or the congress. He was subject to their whims when he worked under their authority to be sure. That, however, does not lessen his greater role as a protector of the Constitution. I have little doubt that he first offered his counsel on the matter. I have little doubt that it was ignored. He then, did his best as a private citizen to speak out against a policy that he saw as a threat to the Constitution. Protect and Defend.

 

[layoutshooter]

Leo,

the movie is called "the secert of my success.



Sorry layout, I would not want him involved.

Speaking out in public to me is a compromise of his principles and breaking of the trust to keep issues within the community, not bringing it to the public for any reason. The public doesn't always understand and because it can appear to be done to damage the president and sway policy for political reasons, it looks like another mark felt.

He was a private citizen at the time. No longer in government service.

His principles and his fiduciary responsibility have always been the same. His oath was to protect and defend the Constitution and his employer was the American People, not any one president or the congress. He was subject to their whims when he worked under their authority to be sure. That, however, does not lessen his greater role as a protector of the Constitution.

I have little doubt that he first offered his counsel on the matter. I have little doubt that it was ignored. He then, did his best as a private citizen, to speak out against a policy that he saw as a threat to the Constitution. Protect and Defend. Once an oath is taken it stands for life.

That point aside, I posted that short bio as an example of the level of experience and accomplishment that we need in the White House. I was not suggesting that Admiral Inman should run. I think he is far too old. So is Ron Paul, in my opinion.

 

[greg334]

He was a private citizen at the time. No longer in government service.

His principles and his fiduciaryresponsibility have always been the same. His oath was to protect and defend the Constitution and his employer was the American People, not any one president or the congress. He was subject to their whims when he worked under their authority to be sure. That, however, does not lessen his greater role as a protector of the Constitution. I have little doubt that he first offered his counsel on the matter. I have little doubt that it was ignored. He then, did his best as a private citizen, to speak out against a policy that he saw as a threat to the Constitution. Protect and Defend. Once an oath is taken it stands for life.

I understand your point but here is mine.

We have too many who feel it is their duty to be political, Plame and others like felt come to mind, in different levels of government. Unlike real politics, we have allowed a lot to happen and a lot of diclosure that has damaged us in many ways.

Regardless who the person is, going into public service should mean not being a puppet or speaking up on issues that can and do damage us. Upholding the consistution also means that we should be careful on what we critisize and change what we can from inside instead of appearing fractured on specific issues.

We have real enemies, this guy and others like him helped them, not us by speaking up. Why isn't a person take in account this fact when they see something wrong and try to correct it internally.

In the case of "domestic wire tapping", you know what this was rerally about and there was no need to have a political media focus on the issue, stopping the progress of finding people who kill americans. The same goes for the foriegn bank transaction monitoring, that had positive results on different levels but was halted because of the NYTs and their need to screw the president.

 

[RLENT]

Echo ...... echo ..... echo ......

Former "Spook" = immediate disqualification (in my book anyways) - ostensibly due to having formerly been a member of a criminal enterprise .....

Such folks would require very significant amounts of atonement to make up for having enabled widespread criminality to be perpetrated in the name of the American people, before they could ever again be trusted to serve ....

Further, I would say it would far more likely that our country would continue to progress to a police-state under the so-called "leadership" of such folks ...... since (as high-ranking officials) they have formerly either personally employed, directed, condoned, or failed to stop, the use of illegal criminal conduct and methods .....

 

[layoutshooter]

Echo ...... echo ..... echo ......

Former "Spook" = immediate disqualification (in my book anyways) - ostensibly due to having formerly been a member of a criminal enterprise .....

Such folks would require very significant amounts of atonement to make up for having enabled widespread criminality to be perpetrated in the name of the American people, before they could ever again be trusted to serve ....

Further, I would say it would far more likely that our country would continue to progress to a police-state under the so-called "leadership" of such folks ...... since (as high-ranking officials) they have formerly either personally employed, directed, condoned, or failed to stop the use of criminal conduct and methods .....

Again, you miss the point, I said an example of the LEVEL of experience, not the person.

As to the rest of you attitude, just how in the world would YOU accomplish the job? You throw stones but I hear no other solutions from you.

You trust no one that kept you safe to rant. Strange. Do you honestly believe that we can just make nice?

How would YOU do it different? I know what I did, all legal under U.S. law. I never once stepped outside of the law. I know no one who did. I quit, among many other reasons, because I was being put into a position where that could happen. I refused to be put into that position.

I find it insulting that you would believe that I could not be trusted. Talk about prejudice. No different that hating or not trusting someone because they are black in my book. What ever happened to "know the man"? Your lumping of ALL intell people is no different that the stuff the KKK spews about those that they hate.

 

[layoutshooter]

I understand your point but here is mine.

We have too many who feel it is their duty to be political, Plame and others like felt come to mind, in different levels of government. Unlike real politics, we have allowed a lot to happen and a lot of diclosure that has damaged us in many ways.

Regardless who the person is, going into public service should mean not being a puppet or speaking up on issues that can and do damage us. Upholding the consistution also means that we should be careful on what we critisize and change what we can from inside instead of appearing fractured on specific issues.

We have real enemies, this guy and others like him helped them, not us by speaking up. Why isn't a person take in account this fact when they see something wrong and try to correct it internally.

In the case of "domestic wire tapping", you know what this was rerally about and there was no need to have a political media focus on the issue, stopping the progress of finding people who kill americans. The same goes for the foriegn bank transaction monitoring, that had positive results on different levels but was halted because of the NYTs and their need to screw the president.

There was never a time in my career that I worked for a man that knew who our enemies were and how to defeat them than when I was under Admiral Inman. He KNEW how to exploit sources legally and effectively.

The problem is that our laws have not kept up with the tech world. Our judicial systems are too slow to react to the modern world. We have underfunded our agencies which as made it difficult to react quickly. Congress, as always, is at fault.

I have no doubt that Admiral Inman took great pains in what he said, and did not do what he did without thinking it over long and hard. He is a very deliberate thinker.

We will have to agree to disagree on that point. I doubt that you could change my opinion and I cannot change yours. I understand and respect your point, I just don't agree with all of it.

 

[RLENT]

Again, you miss the point, I said an example of the LEVEL of experience, not the person.

I didn't miss your point at all - I was merely making a comment generally, about the wisdom of having such folks with that type of background, in positions of leadership ..... (as a matter of record, you have, floated Booby Inman's name before, as your preference for President, among others)

In fact, it was you (apparently) that missed my point .....

As to the rest of your comments, will try and address them as I get a chance, but I have work to do on my vehicle so it might be awhile .....

 

[layoutshooter]

I didn't miss your point at all - I was merely making a comment generally, about the wisdom of having such folks with that type of background, in positions of leadership ..... (as a matter of record, you have, floated Booby Inman's name before, as your preference for President, among others)

In fact, it was you (apparently) that missed my point .....

As to the rest of your comments, will try and address them as I get a chance, but I have work to do on my vehicle so it might be awhile .....

Good luck on your truck. I know the story. I have to do that stuff all the time too. With any luck I won't get to read your response for a day or two, I need a load east and quickly. Business first.

I don't think that I ever said that I wanted the Admiral to run. I think he is far too old. As is Ron Paul. I don't even suggest that his TYPE of experience is what might be needed. A good understanding of that world, yes, without a doubt. What I mean is the LEVEL of accomplishment.

I tend to use military examples only because that is where I spent most of my working years so I am aware of people in that field. I have no doubt that there are people in industry with similar levels of accomplishments. What I want is a person that has succeeded in the real world. Not just school.

 

[Moot]

Leo,
the movie is called "the secert of my success.

Also, Peter Sellers as Chance The Gardener in the movie "Being There."

 

[layoutshooter]

This is what I was trying to convey. Like you stated: "One of the greatest challenges of a manager is picking a staff, then allowing them to do their jobs."

You are correct and one of the biggest problems when you put inexperienced people into high positions is that they often tend to micro manage as an attempt to overcome their lack of understanding. They often also pick people that they can control. Strong, more experienced people tend to seem intimidating a less qualified executive. That often brings out the "bully" tactics.

I don't see the qualities needed in any of the candidates that seem like they my be running in 2012, for either party, including the incumbent.

 

[greg334]

legal?

Are we not at war?

When and where do we draw lines on foreign nationals that we listen to?

I can't see what means we use, the purpose of the intelligence agencies is to gather and analyses information in order to protect us or further the protection of those who are fighting for us - is it not?

Should we go back to a passive position within our country in order to appease everyone outside our borders?

When we speak of upholding the constitution, doesn't that mean protection without the inclusion of foreign nationals or concern over their rights under our laws?

I mean they are not on our soil, so they are not really covered by the consitition, right?

These two programs, one was the "domestic wiretapping" program (which originated on foriegn soil, not here and it wasn't domestic) and the banking records monitoring were both programs that seemed to be insituted with Congress's knowledge and pretty much helped protect the country.

I would don't want another mark felt, plame or anyone who wants political or monetary gain at the expense of the country. But it seems when people start talking, there are motives beyond their stated ones, maybe in this case it is truly a 'patriot' who sees something wrong but we are already on a slipperly slope when we don't shut down newspapers who give out national security secerts or jail people who broke serious laws.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't want people running around willy nilly spouting off either.

Yes, Greg, it is more than possible to to the job that needs and stay within the bounds of the Constitution. That is how it should be done.

The reason that it has slipped out of that way is a multi-phaisic problem. That includes, but is not limited too, lack of funding, too much micro management, a departure from using experience as a major factor in placing people in higher management positions, lack of understanding of how the intell agencies work and on it goes.

You only have to look at Slick Willy to see just when and how we started to lose the handle on terrorists and that led to the reaction that Inman was concerned about, and he was and is correct in his assesments.

The closure of several key intercept sites in Europe. His unwillingness to listen to those who knew that problem. His closure of an extremely important site here in the U.S. A site that was the ONLY site in the world capable of doing the mission it was tasked with.

None of the sites closed were involved with tapping the phones of U.S. citizens in any way. With or without a warrant.
When that type of a tap was needed there was time to get the needed warrant. Why? because we were up on what was going on.

Once those assests were lost we were put into a REACTIVE rather than a PROACTIVE stance. Always a road to disaster. That stance and Clinton's total lack of understanding the problems lead directly to the attacks on 9/11.

It is quite possible, with not all that much work, to put together a system that will not only function within the constraints of the Constitution but do the job far better and in a more reliable way.

I don't see the talent in the White House, the Senate or the House to get that job done. That is why Obama signed on to the Patriot Act as he did. The problem is WAY over his ability to handle it. He has put weak people in key positions. He too does not believe that there is any real danger, despite his talk on the subject. He can spout off all he wants, I see the result of what he is DOING.

Terrorism is a VERY real problem, complex, difficult to attack on an intelligence level. We were doing it quite well at one time. We could again. It would take a fundamental change in thinking. I don't see that happening.

 

[AMonger]

I was not suggesting that Admiral Inman should run. I think he is far too old. So is Ron Paul, in my opinion.

And you have a point there. Ron Paul is a bit older than I'd like to see become president. However, these aren't normal times. Our country is circling the drain, and if there's anyone else who has correctly diagnosed the problems and knows what to do to fix them, he hasn't spoken up. Every other recognized person known to possibly be interested in the presidency promises more of the same. Ron Paul is the only principled man in DC. Wish he were younger, but he's not. We don't have a choice. Well, I take it back...we can allow the tides of universe to sweep our nation into the dustbin of history, or we can take the only option that offers even a glimmer of hope of saving the nation, and that's Ron Paul.

It's kind of like that scene in The Hunt For Red October. The Captain lays out his plan to defect and take the sub to America, and he ends his pitch with, "I put our chances at one-in-three." Of course, having sent that letter to whoever that Russkie bigwig was, there was no choice but to continue. We're in the same position; even with Ron Paul, the odds of rescuing our republic are against us. But slim odds are better than none.

 

[layoutshooter]

And you have a point there. Ron Paul is a bit older than I'd like to see become president. However, these aren't normal times. Our country is circling the drain, and if there's anyone else who has correctly diagnosed the problems and knows what to do to fix them, he hasn't spoken up. Every other recognized person known to possibly be interested in the presidency promises more of the same. Ron Paul is the only principled man in DC. Wish he were younger, but he's not. We don't have a choice. Well, I take it back...we can allow the tides of universe to sweep our nation into the dustbin of history, or we can take the only option that offers even a glimmer of hope of saving the nation, and that's Ron Paul.

It's kind of like that scene in The Hunt For Red October. The Captain lays out his plan to defect and take the sub to America, and he ends his pitch with, "I put our chances at one-in-three." Of course, having sent that letter to whoever that Russkie bigwig was, there was no choice but to continue. We're in the same position; even with Ron Paul, the odds of rescuing our republic are against us. But slim odds are better than none.

You maybe correct and would vote for him if forced too. It would, however, not be a vote for him, but rather a vote against the other guy.

I have many issues with Ron Paul. His age is only one of them. While I believe that he is a principled man I don't see anything near the experience level needed.

Just my opinion. Not worth the electricity used to type it eh? I keep hoping that SOMEONE will step up. I don't see it happening.

 

[greg334]

I'm still trying to figure out the connection to the constitution and foreign nationals on foreign soil - even if it led back to the US. It seems there isn't any if we look at how we should protect our country and the programs described shouldn't be an issue for us. There are far worst things we need to worry about, IRS, DEA and so on in our lives.

As for getting a grip on terrorist, we have since Carter ignored advice and the progress of other nations who have been good at mitigating the problem. Reagan as much as he was a hero to many, still presented a problem and so did Clinton. I am not too fond of both Bushs' but again I see the difference between a president who is willing to at least try and one who wants to treat everything as a law enforcement issue.

 

[layoutshooter]

I'm still trying to figure out the connection to the constitution and foreign nationals on foreign soil - even if it led back to the US. It seems there isn't any if we look at how we should protect our country and the programs described shouldn't be an issue for us. There are far worst things we need to worry about, IRS, DEA and so on in our lives.

As for getting a grip on terrorist, we have since Carter ignored advice and the progress of other nations who have been good at mitigating the problem. Reagan as much as he was a hero to many, still presented a problem and so did Clinton. I am not too fond of both Bushs' but again I see the difference between a president who is willing to at least try and one who wants to treat everything as a law enforcement issue.

There is no connection between foreign nationals on foreign soil. Have at 'em. That is part of the job that agencies such as CIA and NSA are tasked. Those kinds of programs are EXACTLY what Clinton cut out.

My only concern was the wiretaps of U.S. citizens, that can and should be done within the bounds of the Constitution.

Reagan was not all that bad on terror as many believe. His biggest single mistake was pulling out after the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon. That was a huge mistake. He did not understand that threat to any degree that he understood the threat from the Soviets. Two different animals. He did, however work very hard to reverse the stupidity that Carter rained on us.

The biggest plus with Reagan and the two Bushes was the attitude they showed towards those who worked in that business. People don't work well when they are not respected and are ridiculed. Nothing makes you want to put forth a major effort just to be ignored and the opposite thing done. Then having to watch the people die as a result. Deaths that could have and should have been avoided.

 

[greg334]

My only concern was the wiretaps of U.S. citizens, that can and should be done within the bounds of the Constitution

I sort of agree but here is the problem, if the call originated in a foreign land, it should be fair game but if the call originated with a US citizen and provable beyond a doubt, then it should go through FISA.

Reagan did cut and run, I normally would not care otherwise but the ups and downs since Carter seem to be a bit too much and has damaged things overall. Reagan could have stopped a lot more BS with Carter policies but didn't, although he did bring back pride, he could have done a lot more.

 

[layoutshooter]

I sort of agree but here is the problem, if the call originated in a foreign land, it should be fair game but if the call originated with a US citizen and provable beyond a doubt, then it should go through FISA.

Reagan did cut and run, I normally would not care otherwise but the ups and downs since Carter seem to be a bit too much and has damaged things overall. Reagan could have stopped a lot more BS with Carter policies but didn't, although he did bring back pride, he could have done a lot more.

The problem comes into play due to the original laws did not cover an incoming call to a U.S. citizen. It did not allow for a fast enough reaction through FISA. It is fixable. I have not seen a move to do so. Obama is not working on the problem, at least it is not being reported. The problem needs looked at again, with cell phones and other new tech toys that came into play since the original basic law was written.

Reagan did not understand the enemy in the middle east. He did not understand what signal that cut and run sent to them. Huge mistake. Moral at work went up quickly when Carter left. Just the idea that you were now working for a person that respected you and listened to your counsel goes a very long day. Reagan's hands were greatly tied by a congress who fought him often when it came to increased military spending and up grading intell toys.

 

[RLENT]

And you have a point there. Ron Paul is a bit older than I'd like to see become president.

Me too .... but as you rightly point out, the more vital thing is getting the issues right. Consider the following:

Is Ron Paul too old to run for president?

"He will be 77 in the year 2012.

Consider; Charles de Gaulle was president of France at the age of 79. Some say he was the greatest modern leader in French history.

Ditto for Konrad Adenauer, declared by many to be the greatest chancellor of the German Republic in its modern history. Compare him to Helmut Kohl, for example, who presided over the reunification of Germany and was in the process of a Shakespearian moment, with greatness thrust on him, only to self implode in the midst of a tawdry, greedy scandal. Adenauer served Germany with wisdom and class until the age of 87.

Remember, the last “old” president America had was Ronald Reagan, who left office at 78.

Nor is old age the end of creativity. Michelangelo began his monumental work as architect of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome at age 71. By age 89, the year of his death, he was still at it.

This is a concept of biblical power. Moses first saw the vision of freeing the Israeli slaves at age 80. He finally brought them to the Jordan River at the age of 120.

Well, but you say, shouldn’t Ron Paul be able to enjoy his retirement? Doesn’t his wife, who has been ill, deserve to have some time with him, all to herself? And his children? And grandchildren?

That depends on whether they want to have him dead or alive. If he retires, his lifespan will shrink accordingly. If he has a vision, if he seeks the presidency, he will probably live longer. And what a romance, what an adventure, it would be, both as a couple and as a family.

Age is not the problem. Getting the issues right and having the courage to take a stand is the problem. And Ron Paul has proven to be up to both." ...... Doug Wead

Doug Wead The Blog,
A Contrarian View of History and Events

Original Article:

Is Ron Paul too old to run for president?

 

[layoutshooter]

Me too .... but as you rightly point out, the more vital thing is getting the issues right. Consider the following:

Is Ron Paul too old to run for president?

"He will be 77 in the year 2012.

Consider; Charles de Gaulle was president of France at the age of 79. Some say he was the greatest modern leader in French history.

Ditto for Konrad Adenauer, declared by many to be the greatest chancellor of the German Republic in its modern history. Compare him to Helmut Kohl, for example, who presided over the reunification of Germany and was in the process of a Shakespearian moment, with greatness thrust on him, only to self implode in the midst of a tawdry, greedy scandal. Adenauer served Germany with wisdom and class until the age of 87.

Remember, the last “old” president America had was Ronald Reagan, who left office at 78.

Nor is old age the end of creativity. Michelangelo began his monumental work as architect of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome at age 71. By age 89, the year of his death, he was still at it.

This is a concept of biblical power. Moses first saw the vision of freeing the Israeli slaves at age 80. He finally brought them to the Jordan River at the age of 120.

Well, but you say, shouldn’t Ron Paul be able to enjoy his retirement? Doesn’t his wife, who has been ill, deserve to have some time with him, all to herself? And his children? And grandchildren?

That depends on whether they want to have him dead or alive. If he retires, his lifespan will shrink accordingly. If he has a vision, if he seeks the presidency, he will probably live longer. And what a romance, what an adventure, it would be, both as a couple and as a family.

Age is not the problem. Getting the issues right and having the courage to take a stand is the problem. And Ron Paul has proven to be up to both." ...... Doug Wead

Doug Wead The Blog,
A Contrarian View of History and Events

Original Article:

Is Ron Paul too old to run for president?

No problem. He is more likely to die in office than a younger man. Make sure that his VP is good. I don't like somethings of what he says. I like others. I don't believe that he is presidential material. Just my opinion, no more right or wrong than an opinion that anyone else has.