Question for NON-Ron Paul supporters

[Avatar4321]

It is my contention that the GOP Convention is going to be 'brokered'. In other words, none of the 4 candidates will have enough delegates to win the nomination outright. The strategy of the Paul campaign has been in motion for the last 4 years, putting Paul supporters into EVERY state GOP machine and having Paul supporters elected as delegates to the state and national conventions. Should the brokered convention scenario actually occur, I believe Ron Paul will have enough delegates to take the nomination in the 2nd round of voting.

So the question is this... If Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, will you vote for him in November?

Certainly--I really like what Ron Paul has to say on domestic policy--he's right on. BUT--I am bothered by his foreign policy--specifically Iran. I don't think we can let them get a nuclear weapon--because there is no doubt in my mind that they would use it.

Plus--while I understand most of the grips about the Patriot Act--I think we need it in place for counter-terrorism matters. I would prefer to catch terrorists before they act.

I won't get into an Iran argument, I think Israel has more than enough firepower to take out Iran's nuclear programs before they get 'the BOMB'.

But the Patriot Act? You're OK with giving up your God-given rights?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

We have a God-given right to engage in terrorism?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Section 213 Sneak and Peek Warrants: this provision allows “sneak and peek” search warrants, which grants authorities authorization to search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of a probe. Investigators still have to explain why they want to delay the search notification and must eventually notify the target about the search (Abramson and Godoy 2006). Under this provision the FBI is permitted to enter a home or an office in the absence of the occupant. During this secret investigation, FBI agents are authorized to take photographs, examine computer hard drives, and install a device known as the Magic Lantern. Once installed, the Magic Lantern, records all computer activity not just those transmitted over the internet. The United States Justice Department claims that this provision has already allowed investigators to search the houses of drug dealers and other criminals without providing advance notice that might have jeopardized the investigation (Paye 2006). Critics claim that investigators already had the power to conduct secret searches in counterterrorism and counterespionage probes. They claim that the USA PATRIOT Act authorized the use of this technique for any crime, no matter how minor. Civil Libertarians claim that sneak and peek searches should be narrowly limited to cases in which an investigation would be seriously jeopardized by immediate notice (Abramson and Godoy 2006).



Section 215 Access to Records: this provision allows investigators to obtain “any tangible thing” including books, records, papers, documents and other items sought in connection with a terrorist investigation. This is probably the most hotly debated provision of the law and has become known as the “libraries provision.” This section does not require any individualized suspicion to get a court order for any record wanted in an intelligence investigation. It allows the FBI, by means of a secret authorization from a court, to have access to any and all personal data without having to demonstrate that the inquiry has anything to do with terrorism or a foreign power. No one is allowed to reveal to another person that the FBI sought to obtain or has obtained “tangible things” under this section. The new version of this article makes it possible to challenge this stipulation and the Justice Department has agreed that the recipient of a Section 215 order can consult with an attorney after a waiting period of one year. However, the government has the right to override such a challenge for reasons of national security (Paye 2006).



Critics of the USA PATRIOT Act attack the breadth of the provision, saying that the law could be used to demand the reading records of library or bookstore patrons. The Department of Justice has denied that Article 215 has ever been used to obtain library records. However, civil libertarians point out that since 2001, federal agents have visited several libraries and in fact, have obtained records from 178 of them. The real number of these requests may be much higher since the USA PATRIOT Act makes illegal any disclosure on the part of the institutions concerned (Abramson and Godoy 2006).



One of the reasons Section 215 is so controversial is due to Article 505 National Security Letters. This clause expands the possibilities for the FBI or other governmental agencies to obtain a National Security Letter. The letter is a type of administrative subpoena granting access to medical and financial data, as well as data from travel agencies, casinos, automobile rental agencies, and library records. The Bush administration has steadfastly refused to include a standard in this article expressly allowing doctors, lawyers, and priests to challenge any effort by government agents to get privileged communications from patients, clients, or penitents. The FBI is able to obtain authorization for these records outside the context of any counter-espionage investigation. The USA PATRIOT Act has led to a marked increase in the FBI’s use of National Security Letters, one hundred times the historic average. The FBI itself has admitted that National Security Letters allow the Bureau to collect information about citizens who are not suspected of any wrongdoing (Boykoff 2006). According to a report from the Justice Department’s Inspector General in March 2007, the FBI has issued about thirty thousand letters per year and one hundred forty three thousand requests for information through National Security Letters from 2003 to 2005 alone. Additionally, the report found that the Bureau had often used the letters improperly and sometimes illegally (Liptak 2007).



Section 218 Foreign Intelligence Wiretaps and Searches: Criminal investigators have a high bar to reach when asking for permission to wiretap or search a suspect’s home. This provision lowers the bar for launching foreign intelligence wiretaps and searches in counterterrorism or counterespionage probes, where investigators must only prove that the suspect is an “agent of a foreign power.” This provision authorizes secret searches of a residence or business, without notification, if there is a “reasonable presumption” to believe that the residence or business contains information relative to the activity of an agent of a foreign power. The existence of any proof or indication of a crime is not required.



Prior to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, federal agents and investigators had to certify that the primary objective of the search concerned obtaining intelligence in connection with the suspect foreigner (Paye 2006). This provision allows investigators to get a foreign intelligence wiretap or search order, even though they may end up bringing criminal charges against the suspect. The law now permits secret searches of anyone’s home, foreigner or United States citizen, on the mere suspicion that this individual is more or less linked to terrorism. Critics of the USA PATRIOT Act claim that investigators will too easily use spying and terrorism as an excuse to launch foreign intelligence and wiretap searches. Additionally, they point to the fact that the number of intelligence wiretaps now exceeds the number of criminal wiretaps. Civil libertarians claim that since these probes are conducted in secret, with little oversight, abuses could be difficult to uncover (Abramson and Godoy 2006).

 

[earlycuyler]

It is my contention that the GOP Convention is going to be 'brokered'. In other words, none of the 4 candidates will have enough delegates to win the nomination outright. The strategy of the Paul campaign has been in motion for the last 4 years, putting Paul supporters into EVERY state GOP machine and having Paul supporters elected as delegates to the state and national conventions. Should the brokered convention scenario actually occur, I believe Ron Paul will have enough delegates to take the nomination in the 2nd round of voting.

So the question is this... If Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, will you vote for him in November?

No, I wont vote for Paul. He is Romny's Renfield and just a political insider scumbag.

 

[Liability]

Certainly--I really like what Ron Paul has to say on domestic policy--he's right on. BUT--I am bothered by his foreign policy--specifically Iran. I don't think we can let them get a nuclear weapon--because there is no doubt in my mind that they would use it.

Plus--while I understand most of the grips about the Patriot Act--I think we need it in place for counter-terrorism matters. I would prefer to catch terrorists before they act.

I won't get into an Iran argument, I think Israel has more than enough firepower to take out Iran's nuclear programs before they get 'the BOMB'.

But the Patriot Act? You're OK with giving up your God-given rights?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

We have a God-given right to engage in terrorism?

If we deny the God given right to engage in terrorism, the terrorists have WON!

I used to see a sig line like that around.

 

[uscitizen]

A President can't fire a Congressman, only the voters can do that...

I doubt he will "grow the government" also. He may grow weeds in the Rose Garden, but he'll be a lame duck from day 1.

And therein lies the problem. There are simply not enough citizens that want our government to operate the way it was designed. You people LIKE this dysfunctional bullshit and LOOK FORWARD to going TOTALLY BROKE.

You know the old saying "When all else fails, read the directions!"? Read the damned directions and stop this Dem v. Rep false dichotomy that is driving the nation over a cliff!

Um Paul is a Republican.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJIENYEhkJ4]Ron Paul Highlights in 2/22/2012 Presidential Debate - YouTube[/ame]