PDA

View Full Version : What do youguys think about Amit Singh? Can we trust him?




V4Vendetta
05-08-2008, 11:52 AM
I have seen people call him a spy.
I don't know anything about him, so i am just curious.
So those of you that know anything about him, please fill us in.

acptulsa
05-08-2008, 11:54 AM
How long can you last in this nation and how far can you get if you refuse to ever work for someone who does any jobs for the military industrial complex? In addition, is having a military industial complex completely a bad thing?

pinkmandy
05-08-2008, 11:55 AM
I've met him and watched him speak. He has a genuine love of Ron Paul and his ideals. Without real evidence to the contrary I'd never, ever label him a "spy".

Kotin
05-08-2008, 11:57 AM
this witchhunt against Amit is getting really old.

Cinderella
05-08-2008, 11:59 AM
that FECwatcher or whatever his name is started this whole thing.....hes the spy...

dcdreamboat
05-08-2008, 12:05 PM
I've met Amit. The guy is philopophically sound.

FECwatcher
05-08-2008, 12:07 PM
Ron has retracted his endorsement of Bill Johnson because of his past statements on race. But Amit Singh has actually helped oppress the American people with NSA and TIA spying on dissidents. He has also personally profited from Pentagon wars. This is 180 degrees out from what Ron believes in and fights for.

Here's the link to Lizardo's statement about endorsement errors and retractions:

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/05/ron-paul-statem.html

Singh resume:
http://www.kanak.net/resume/amit_singh.pdf

Singh says the 4th Amendment to the US Consitution is a "distraction":
http://blacknell.net/dynamic/2008/04/02/interview-with-candidate-amit-singh-8th-cd-part-iii/

Does this sound like a Ron Paul Candidate? Should he be given $$$ we donated to Ron?

Tom Lizardo and Ron should review and retract this endorsement too!.

crazyfingers
05-08-2008, 12:09 PM
Edit: On closer inspection I would like to see Amit clear up his stance on the protections afforded by the 4th Amendment.

acptulsa
05-08-2008, 12:23 PM
“I would not be opposed to [securing warrants] before getting involved. Some of the reasons why people were trying to circumvent the system [is that] there’s a lot of bureaucracy involved. You know, when you’re in the hunt, you get so caught up in the hunt that you don’t want to deal with the paperwork, [and they] don’t want to deal with the things they feel are a distraction. There are smarter ways to do the same job. There can be an internal compromise that makes the hunt more efficient. Again, I can’t go into details here, but I’m a big believer that we can make this work. They will make this work. There are people I can understand, rightfully so, that they really want to protect the country, and in the hunt they feel like the paperwork gets in their way, and they know what they’re doing – they’re really trying to save our country, and it’s a distraction. But I think we can make it more efficient.”

Don't know how to break this to you, FEC, but he's talking about making the process of issuing warrants more efficient so that the law enforcement types will no longer have any reason to circumvent the system.

asgardshill
05-08-2008, 12:27 PM
I have seen people call him a spy.


The only individual here who seems to have a hardon for Singh is FECwatcher. And considering that FECwatcher is a hit-and-run poster who cropdusts baseless and inflammatory accusations then mysteriously disappears when pressed to present proof, I wouldn't put a lot of credence in what FECwatcher posts.

Singh might be the NWO Antichrist for all I know. But I would expect to see some proof that he was before calling him that here.

RPTXState
05-08-2008, 12:28 PM
<bleh, doublepost>

Bradley in DC
05-08-2008, 12:28 PM
I've not met him personally, but his campaign works with ours for Vern. The local area RP Meetup groups are solidly behind both.

RPTXState
05-08-2008, 12:28 PM
Singh might be the NWO Antichrist for all I know. But I would expect to see some proof that he was before calling him that here.

+1

mdh
05-08-2008, 02:26 PM
Woah, I just realized I know this guy. Trippy.

constituent
05-08-2008, 02:30 PM
1) “I would not be opposed to [securing warrants] before getting involved. Some of the reasons why people were trying to circumvent the system [is that] there’s a lot of bureaucracy involved.

2) You know, when you’re in the hunt, you get so caught up in the hunt that you don’t want to deal with the paperwork, [and they] don’t want to deal with the things they feel are a distraction. There are smarter ways to do the same job.

3) There can be an internal compromise that makes the hunt more efficient. Again, I can’t go into details here, but I’m a big believer that we can make this work. They will make this work.

4) There are people I can understand, rightfully so, that they really want to protect the country, and in the hunt they feel like the paperwork gets in their way, and they know what they’re doing – they’re really trying to save our country, and it’s a distraction. But I think we can make it more efficient.”

<snip>.

frankly, that quote bothers me on so many levels.

1) when it comes to invasions of privacy, there needs to be a lot of bureaucracy involved to make sure it doesn't actually happen (imo)

2) when i'm "in the hunt" the last thing on my mind is paperwork. no, i don't "know," sorry.

"There are smarter ways to do the same job." wrong answer, try again.

3) "I can't go into details" Where, oh where have i heard that before?

4) NO, they're not trying to "Save our country." Why should we continue to pay for their g.i. joe pipe dreams? that's the real question.

V4Vendetta
05-08-2008, 02:36 PM
“I would not be opposed to [securing warrants] before getting involved. Some of the reasons why people were trying to circumvent the system [is that] there’s a lot of bureaucracy involved. You know, when you’re in the hunt, you get so caught up in the hunt that you don’t want to deal with the paperwork, [and they] don’t want to deal with the things they feel are a distraction. There are smarter ways to do the same job. There can be an internal compromise that makes the hunt more efficient. Again, I can’t go into details here, but I’m a big believer that we can make this work. They will make this work. There are people I can understand, rightfully so, that they really want to protect the country, and in the hunt they feel like the paperwork gets in their way, and they know what they’re doing – they’re really trying to save our country, and it’s a distraction. But I think we can make it more efficient.”


Ummmm.....

The reason the paperwork is involved is so it will be hard to get a warrant.

That quote just seriously bothered me.

crazyfingers
05-08-2008, 02:36 PM
frankly, that quote bothers me on so many levels.

Yes that "bureaucracy" line is total BS. The warrants can be obtained afterwards if time is of the essence. The reason the Bush administration has refused to work within the framework setup by FISA is because they are wiretapping entire municipalities without any probable cause whatsoever.

Maybe Amit does have some explaining to do, afterall.

acptulsa
05-08-2008, 02:44 PM
Ummmm.....

The reason the paperwork is involved is so it will be hard to get a warrant.

That quote just seriously bothered me.

You're both paranoid. The problem is, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

On the one hand, I understand your reservations. On the other, I can also understand that he's doing a good job of appealing to other Republicans with this. People who feel they're in danger don't want the good guys caught up in three days' begging before they can go arrest the bad guys. Someone has to figure out how to bridge the gap between the Ron Paul Republicans and the old liners. I don't see a problem with a candidate who understands the challenges that law enforcement faces, or with one who believes in streamlining procedures (until this streamlining is the Dubya variety where the Constitution is shitcanned, which is distinctly what Singh is trying to avoid).

I guess only time will tell if he's true or not. In any case, I'm inclined to trust Dr. Paul's vetting. One thing I'm sure of--anyone who says that quote is advocating circumventing the Constitution isn't reading it very carefully.

mdh
05-08-2008, 02:50 PM
You guys need to understand that there is a huge difference between due diligence to ensure that a warrant is justified, and unnecessary (and costly) bureaucracy that doesn't do anyone any good. There's a whole lot of the latter right now, and in some areas, not enough of the former. One of the problems that I saw with the patriot act, etc, was that they tried to sweep most of the latter out of the way (while creating a little bit of additional of the latter, too) without shoring up the former at all.

Don't be so doubtful that there are people in the intelligence community who really give a crap. There are.

Todd
05-08-2008, 02:52 PM
this witchhunt against Amit is getting really old.

I don't have a clap smily, but I'm clapping.

If Ron gave him an endorsement, then I'll trust that he has done his homework.

V4Vendetta
05-08-2008, 02:54 PM
I don't have a clap smily, but I'm clapping.

If Ron gave him an endorsement, then I'll trust that he has done his homework.

Blind faith in anyone is plain stupid.

acptulsa
05-08-2008, 02:57 PM
Blind faith in anyone is plain stupid.

And that Johnson debacle out in LA doesn't help one bit, either. I know. However, a close reading of that statement doesn't do one thing to convince me that we can't trust Singh. I am like you in that (especially having cut my teeth in the Nixon years) I feel any law and order candidate bears close watching. I'm just not opposed to law and order.

mdh
05-08-2008, 03:01 PM
And that Johnson debacle out in LA doesn't help one bit, either. I know. However, a close reading of that statement doesn't do one thing to convince me that we can't trust Singh. I am like you in that (especially having cut my teeth in the Nixon years) I feel any law and order candidate bears close watching. I'm just not opposed to law and order.

Well, I think the original is definitly superior to CI, SVU, et al. Fred Thompson was pretty much the ultimate law and order candidate, but he's dropped out already.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-08-2008, 03:04 PM
frankly, that quote bothers me on so many levels.

1) when it comes to invasions of privacy, there needs to be a lot of bureaucracy involved to make sure it doesn't actually happen (imo)

2) when i'm "in the hunt" the last thing on my mind is paperwork. no, i don't "know," sorry.

"There are smarter ways to do the same job." wrong answer, try again.

3) "I can't go into details" Where, oh where have i heard that before?

4) NO, they're not trying to "Save our country." Why should we continue to pay for their g.i. joe pipe dreams? that's the real question.

I agree with you, and it's not like getting a warrant is so hard anyway. They'd just rather violate now and apologize later.

ClockwiseSpark
05-08-2008, 03:14 PM
Ron has retracted his endorsement of Bill Johnson because of his past statements on race. But Amit Singh has actually helped oppress the American people with NSA and TIA spying on dissidents. He has also personally profited from Pentagon wars. This is 180 degrees out from what Ron believes in and fights for.

Here's the link to Lizardo's statement about endorsement errors and retractions:

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/05/ron-paul-statem.html

Singh resume:
http://www.kanak.net/resume/amit_singh.pdf

Singh says the 4th Amendment to the US Consitution is a "distraction":
http://blacknell.net/dynamic/2008/04/02/interview-with-candidate-amit-singh-8th-cd-part-iii/

Does this sound like a Ron Paul Candidate? Should he be given $$$ we donated to Ron?

Tom Lizardo and Ron should review and retract this endorsement too!.

http://www.forward-moving.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/38197-spam.jpg

crazyfingers
05-08-2008, 03:26 PM
I agree with you, and it's not like getting a warrant is so hard anyway. They'd just rather violate now and apologize later.

They can't get warrants because they are eavesdropping on tens of thousands of people without any sort of reasonable cause (in clear violation of the 4th amendment), compiling that data, and then using computers to seperate out any "suspicious" information.

We have these safeguards in place for a reason. There are better ways to fight terrorism than depriving us of our civil liberties.

There are many sources that collaborate this information. I recommend people do a Google search for "AT&T" "NSA" and "wiretap". Fortunately some whistleblowers who didn't want this weighing on their concious have emerged.

yongrel
05-08-2008, 03:27 PM
Ok, I am getting fed up with this shit.

FECwatcher has been a successful troll. Congratulations FEC! You've managed to dupe a few people on the internet. Now go back to your soap operas.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-08-2008, 03:37 PM
They can't get warrants because they are eavesdropping on tens of thousands of people without any sort of reasonable cause (in clear violation of the 4th amendment), compiling that data, and then using computers to seperate out any "suspicious" information.

We have these safeguards in place for a reason. There are better ways to fight terrorism than depriving us of our civil liberties.

There are many sources that collaborate this information. I recommend people do a Google search for "AT&T" "NSA" and "wiretap". Fortunately some whistleblowers who didn't want this weighing on their concious have emerged.

Well, I should have said it's not hard to get a warrant with the slightest bit of probable cause, or other crap that passes for probable cause. I've seen some pretty stupid heresay pass muster. What we need are stiffer penalties for government agents who violate the law, not Ron Paul republicans making excuses for them.

And I don't really care who FECWatcher is. There are thousands of trolls all over the internet with their own agendas, and he's Singh's political opponent for all I know. Either way, I do care who Singh is. I don't think privacy is a trivial matter. Who's blacknell.net?

spacehabitats
05-08-2008, 03:39 PM
I admit, I haven't read this whole thread, I don't know Singh personally, haven't read anything by him, haven't heard any speeches, can't confirm or deny anything about his occupation or employers and........

I would like to express an opinion.

Ron Paul likes him and has endorsed him.
"Ron Paul is human and can make mistakes."
So what?

What is the worst that could happen if Amit were a mole and is elected to congress?
We would have a congressman that wouldn't be defending the constitution?:rolleyes:

But what if he is for real, we've increased the number of good congressman by 100%.:)

Lets get real.

crazyfingers
05-08-2008, 03:40 PM
Ok, I am getting fed up with this shit.

FECwatcher has been a successful troll. Congratulations FEC! You've managed to dupe a few people on the internet. Now go back to your soap operas.

Ok so does he support the NSA's unconstitutional eavesdropping operation? A program that runs roughshod over our civil liberties and has absolutely zero protection against abuse. I don't think it's too much to want some clear answers.

frdmrdr
05-08-2008, 03:41 PM
besides, he's only got like 8 posts. I've got at least 12 by now.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-08-2008, 03:51 PM
I admit, I haven't read this whole thread, I don't know Singh personally, haven't read anything by him, haven't heard any speeches, can't confirm or deny anything about his occupation or employers and........

I would like to express an opinion.

Ron Paul likes him and has endorsed him.
"Ron Paul is human and can make mistakes."
So what?

What is the worst that could happen if Amit were a mole and is elected to congress?
We would have a congressman that wouldn't be defending the constitution?:rolleyes:

Actually, it means resources were diverted to elect a privacy violator when they could have been used to support someone else.

I'm reserving judgement, as I don't trust the source yet. Did Singh do an interview with the owner of blacknell.net and is that what he said? Would he defend those statements? Has he made other similar statements?

Just to make it easy, I already assume FECwatcher is shady in some form or another, but that doesn't mean there's no issue here.

Bradley in DC
05-08-2008, 04:14 PM
Ron has retracted his endorsement of Bill Johnson because of his past statements on race. But Amit Singh has actually helped oppress the American people with NSA and TIA spying on dissidents. He has also personally profited from Pentagon wars. This is 180 degrees out from what Ron believes in and fights for.

Here's the link to Lizardo's statement about endorsement errors and retractions:

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/05/ron-paul-statem.html

Singh resume:
http://www.kanak.net/resume/amit_singh.pdf

Singh says the 4th Amendment to the US Consitution is a "distraction":
http://blacknell.net/dynamic/2008/04/02/interview-with-candidate-amit-singh-8th-cd-part-iii/

Does this sound like a Ron Paul Candidate? Should he be given $$$ we donated to Ron?

Tom Lizardo and Ron should review and retract this endorsement too!.

Johnson got Dr. Paul's endorsement via Lew Moore, I'm told, who circumvented the vetting process of Tom Lizardo. Amit WAS vetted. The DC area Ron Paul Meetup groups are all behind Amit and Vern. Dr. Paul is doing a fundraiser for Amit.

Enough with FECwatcher already.

amy31416
05-08-2008, 04:24 PM
It's one thing to ask questions of a candidate, that's fine. To come out and say that he is a government spy is asinine.

Guess what kiddies? I applied for several jobs in the government when I lived in the Baltimore-Washington area. I was offered a job with a company that did work for the government in chemical demilitarization. I ended up turning it down because Bush had just taken office, but that's a whole different story. My entire family there at one point worked for the government in some way, shape or form. One of them at a high enough level where you'd see him on CNN at 5AM talking about Asian trade agreements. Working for the government does not = evil and in that area almost every business has something to do with the government.

Ask the questions for god's sake, but don't just make statements about who he is or what his intentions are without researching it appropriately. Acptulsa is right that the majority of the complaints make him a bit more amenable to the current Republican party, but some of you are right too, if there's something that makes you uncomfortable, ask the questions. But the accusations just make you look like a troll.

constituent
05-08-2008, 04:27 PM
Ok, I am getting fed up with this shit.

FECwatcher has been a successful troll. Congratulations FEC! You've managed to dupe a few people on the internet. Now go back to your soap operas.

I don't think anyone has been "duped." Has FEC watcher been spamming anti-Amit Singh messages? yes.

Does that make him/her a troll, yes.

However, the quote posted (if it originated from amit) does bother me for the reasons outlined in the earlier post.

I have nothing against Amit and want to see him succeed, assuming that either a) my concerns are unfounded or b) the quote was made up out of thin air or c) he discusses the points brought up in my earlier post and assuages the fears/concerns already expressed.

[He is under no obligation to do so, but I don't see how it could hurt]

Frankly (and i've only seen a couple of youtube clips), he seems like someone i'd be very happy to support.

However, i do not feel that way if the quote FECwatcher posted was accurate. If that was a fair summation of Mr. Singh's attitude toward the intrusions of the federal government on the liberties of the individual (u.s. citizen or not, see constitution), then we should rightfully be concerned and engaging in open dialogue/debate about the matter.

Now with that said, is the quote enough to leave him dead in the water? Of course not, but it certainly doesn't help rally the troops.

Juz my thoughts, take 'em or leave 'em.

constituent
05-08-2008, 04:30 PM
1) does not =


2) Ask the questions for god's sake, but don't just make statements about who he is or what his intentions are without researching it appropriately. Acptulsa is right that the majority of the complaints make him a bit more amenable to the current Republican party, but some of you are right too, if there's something that makes you uncomfortable, ask the questions. But the accusations just make you look like a troll.

1) option + = on your keyboard

2) amen to that.

M.B.
05-08-2008, 09:18 PM
Hi. Mark Blacknell here, proprietor of Blacknell.net. Got a mess of hits from this thread earlier today, and came to see what the fuss was about. Who am I? A long-time political blogger that resides in the district Amit Singh is trying to win. His campaign manager got in touch with me about an interview and we got together.

The interview that's quoted here is a word-for-word transcript of our sit down that took place early last month. But whoever's trying to turn it into some slick denunciation of the Fourth Amendment is a complete idiot. Mr. Singh was just (perhaps inartfully) describing the mindset of those working in the intelligence industry. While I'm very comfortable being a solid Democrat, I expect that I and a lot of the Ron Paul Forum members share a lot of concerns about the Fed gov't's current approach to the Constitution. If I thought Amit was being shady or dishonest in his approach to surveillance, I'd have pushed the point further. If you don't believe me, follow the rest of the interview and check out topics like congressional oversight or the Real ID Act.

Further, if you have any real reservations about his position on an issue, I'd urge you to contact his campaign. They've been very accessible, in my experience. While conjecture and innuendo may make for amusing political conversation, it's a shite way to decide who to support.

Finally, while no one here asked (and I'm not at all sure that it would help him), I'm personally very comfortable taking Amit at his word. He's not a consultant-polished politician, and he's just trying to say what he means. He and I are on different sides of the aisle, but I don't question his genuine dedication to defending the Constitution, encouraging fiscal responsibility, or representing the 8th CD of Virginia.

mdh
05-08-2008, 09:26 PM
Good post, Mr. Blacknell, you seem pretty genuine.

Not at all like our Republican executive committee friends would have us believe of Democrats. ;)

amy31416
05-08-2008, 09:35 PM
Hi. Mark Blacknell here, proprietor of Blacknell.net. Got a mess of hits from this thread earlier today, and came to see what the fuss was about. Who am I? A long-time political blogger that resides in the district Amit Singh is trying to win. His campaign manager got in touch with me about an interview and we got together.

The interview that's quoted here is a word-for-word transcript of our sit down that took place early last month. But whoever's trying to turn it into some slick denunciation of the Fourth Amendment is a complete idiot. Mr. Singh was just (perhaps inartfully) describing the mindset of those working in the intelligence industry. While I'm very comfortable being a solid Democrat, I expect that I and a lot of the Ron Paul Forum members share a lot of concerns about the Fed gov't's current approach to the Constitution. If I thought Amit was being shady or dishonest in his approach to surveillance, I'd have pushed the point further. If you don't believe me, follow the rest of the interview and check out topics like congressional oversight or the Real ID Act.

Further, if you have any real reservations about his position on an issue, I'd urge you to contact his campaign. They've been very accessible, in my experience. While conjecture and innuendo may make for amusing political conversation, it's a shite way to decide who to support.

Finally, while no one here asked (and I'm not at all sure that it would help him), I'm personally very comfortable taking Amit at his word. He's not a consultant-polished politician, and he's just trying to say what he means. He and I are on different sides of the aisle, but I don't question his genuine dedication to defending the Constitution, encouraging fiscal responsibility, or representing the 8th CD of Virginia.

Thanks for the information and welcome to the boards!

ronpaulitician
05-08-2008, 10:10 PM
I'm glad we're asking these questions. I've been worried about opportunists.

Sad to see what happened to Bill. No idea what his current views on race are, and had no idea about his past, but found him a very welcoming guy at the Pasadena meetup meetings at his residence.

libertarian4321
05-08-2008, 11:01 PM
He has also personally profited from Pentagon wars. This is 180 degrees out from what Ron believes in and fights for.



The guy has worked as a civilian government employee/government consultant.

Looks like pretty low level stuff. In other words, he had a support job- he isn't setting policy.

Hell, if you are going to "throw out" anyone who has ever worked for the military, or any government agency you don't like, your going to have to discard an awful lot of people, INCLUDING RON PAUL (yup, he "profited" from his job as an Air Force officer).

ronpaulitician
05-08-2008, 11:08 PM
Hell, if you are going to "throw out" anyone who has ever worked for the military, or any government agency you don't like, your going to have to discard an awful lot of people, INCLUDING RON PAUL (yup, he "profited" from his job as an Air Force officer).
And we'd have to return all the military donations.

libertarian4321
05-08-2008, 11:34 PM
But whoever's trying to turn it into some slick denunciation of the Fourth Amendment is a complete idiot.

Thats what I was thinking- thanks for the confirmation.

If James Madison came back to life, I think some of the more paranoid people on these forums would question his dedication to the Constitution- and probably accuse him of being a spy for the Trilateral commission/Bilderbergs/NSA/(insert name of evil organization that controls the world here)...

constituent
05-09-2008, 05:26 AM
If James Madison came back to life, I think some of the more paranoid people on these forums would question his dedication to the Constitution- and probably accuse him of being a spy for the Trilateral commission/Bilderbergs/NSA/(insert name of evil organization that controls the world here)...


edit.

dw1345
05-09-2008, 05:50 AM
Amit Singh is genuine, guys. I've been following his campaign, listening to him speak, researching his issues, and he is running on Ron Paul's ideas. Plus, Ron Paul has endorsed him. Also, so even if he possibly diagrees (which he doesn't) with Ron Paul on 1% of the issues, we're going to throw him out even though he agrees with 99% of the rest? Amit Singh is here to stay.

acptulsa
05-09-2008, 06:37 AM
I said it before, but obviously I need to find a different way to say it.

What Mr. Singh said in this interview is that law enforcement personnel hot on the trail of bad guys sometimes consider the Fourth Amendment a stumbling block. You may consider that a legitimate cause for concern about our safety or you may look at that as Mr. Singh playing the devil's advocate as you prefer. Mr. Singh is pledging to find a way to ensure that guarding our Constitutional rights doesn't take one bureaucratic minute longer than absolutely necessary.

Read it again if you don't believe me.

Is his heart in the right place? Well, that's the wonderful thing about Dr. Paul--a twenty year voting record we can take to the bank. We obviously don't have many more of those. So, we're going to have to get our candidates in and then watch 'em. What the hell else can we do?

But for right now, if you don't think Mr. Singh is singing the right tune, you misunderstood him.

Phantom
05-09-2008, 07:42 AM
For those who have not heard Amit Singh talk about where he stands on the issues, here (http://www.presidentronpaul.co.uk/amitsingh.html) are a few videos of him.

amy31416
05-09-2008, 08:07 AM
Is his heart in the right place? Well, that's the wonderful thing about Dr. Paul--a twenty year voting record we can take to the bank. We obviously don't have many more of those. So, we're going to have to get our candidates in and then watch 'em. What the hell else can we do?

But for right now, if you don't think Mr. Singh is singing the right tune, you misunderstood him.

Well said. Believe me, every single person we help get elected who is running on a RP platform will be watched like a hawk and will have to answer for his voting record, actions, etc. The great thing about Congress is that it's a 2 yr term--if they don't cut the mustard, they will, at best, never have our support again. At worst, we'll actively make sure they don't get elected again.

It's more of a liability in some ways to run on RP's platform if you're in a neocon area. It worked out well for BJ because Cho was such a tool, but RP's platform can be used against people as well. Haven't we seen that?

MRoCkEd
05-09-2008, 01:19 PM
http://www.lunchbomb.com/

Only 175 pledges
Pledge now and donate at LEAST $10 to this awesome candidate

crazyfingers
05-09-2008, 01:41 PM
Well I have seen no conclusive evidence either way of Amit's position on the "secret" NSA wiretaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy). IMO it is one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties enacted since 9/11, and I sincerely hope that if elected Singh would use his influence within the intelligence community to end it. As written, the FISA law is not an impediment towards fighting terrorism, it is only an impedient to the wholesale unwarrented surveillence of the American people. In conclusion I'm going to assume that this is just political posturing and he really is on the side of civil liberties and privacy rights.

belian78
05-09-2008, 01:59 PM
this isnt ron paul grassroots material, i think it should be moved.

anaconda
05-09-2008, 02:10 PM
I gotta be honest...I just accepted RP's recent endorsement of Amit Singh. Frankly, I have thought that the Revolution could be alot more effective with money bombs if we all rallied behind Dr. Paul's recommendations.

What's all this stuff about being a "spy?"

I don't think it should disqualify someone for having worked for the military-industrial complex. A strong defense is essential. A corrupt government that uses the military for corrupt and immoral purposes is the real problem.

Aratus
05-09-2008, 02:17 PM
even the initial resume, if totally or partially accurate, highlights his source code
programmer credentials. by no means is he akin to a cia analyst type whose forte is
being a policy wonk. i still wonder if someone played games with a possible resume. i
had placed this all almost in the same boat as the romney x-mas card run that got post
stamped for 41 cents from south carolina. i was surprised when seeing the initial posting...

Aratus
05-09-2008, 02:27 PM
had Amit Singh lived in the same district as Vern McKinley, even though their views
are quite similar, because of Vern's Cato Institute connection, he'd have an edge in a
debate. since they live in adjourning districts, and are running against establishment
candidates who have a degree of seniority, both races could have very pleasant upsets!
like Vern McKinley, Amit Singh wants to unseat a well entrenched incumbant. is he a spy?
o.k... methinks even if the resume is totally accurate, it implies a security clearance for
someone who is basically a programmer, a person who resolves conflicts in sophisticated
source code... yes, getting at a glitch or a gremlin does not say ultimately what the user
interface does to a program... he maybe has a rough idea of the projects yet he can't talk
about them!!! the debate about our military industrial complex and the ethics of a gov't paycheck
is very familiar to me, i can remember the vietnanese war and the debate over dow chemical!