![[FSF Associate Member]](http://www.notsosoft.net/images/getButton){kind=small}
Wow, Ron Paul Folks are out in Force!
Wow, so I’m taken aback by the MASSIVE traffic I’ve just gotten from the Ron Paul supporters. It’s almost like there are campaign workers scanning blogs, looking for Ron Paul, ready to pounce the moment they see something that is not positive about their candidates.
Many have commented, and I appreciate that. I love the open dialog, it’s nice. Most of you are polite, but several of you come across as rather defensive. Ron Paul, however, will never receive my support as I see him as a racist politician trying to shut the US off from the rest of the world.
I do think that birthright citizenship is a fundamental principal in the United States. I do think that the U.N. does enough good to keep trying to work with them. I don’t think that shutting our economy off from the rest of the world by backing out of NAFTA or WTO would be good for us or the world.
As the world grows technologically and economically, we must remember that we’re all part of this bigger picture. Ron Paul dismisses the value of globalization, and stresses strong senses of nationalism which I reject outright. I am not a nationalist by any stretch of the imagination. I am a U.S. citizen, and I am a world citizen as well. My faith and my reason dictate that I support government efforts to do good abroad, and to trade fairly around the world.
Ron Paul can stick his head in the sand and say we’re going to deport millions of people if he really wants to, and that’s fine. But he is not my choice.
As for those who have asked who I will be voting for, that’s a tough question. I’m not completely decided yet. Barack Obama and Christopher Dodd seem like pretty decent candidates, but Mike Huckabee and John McCain could do more to sway my opinion towards their favor. Unfortunately Ron Paul is on my list of “candidates that if elected will cause me to move to Canada.” I don’t want to be part of a country that shuts itself off from the rest of the world.
So there you have it. There’s my opinion, and that’s been pretty consistent for a while now. I do appreciate the discussion, and I’m happy to facilitate it on my blog. I don’t think my opinion on Ron Paul is subject to change much though. Thanks for reading and thanks for commenting 
Update: For those who think my statement of racism is based solely on Dr. Paul’s immigration stance, please note that it’s actually because of his anti-birthright citizenship and isolationist ideas that I think he is a racist, not because of his anti-illegal immigration stance.
Popularity: 9%
This entry was posted
on Thursday, August 2nd, 2007 at 09:44 and is filed under Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Stumble it!
You say a couple of times which Ron Paul would “shut the country off from the rest of the world.” Your arguments are ineffective because your basis for your statements are incorrect.
Ron Paul supports engagement via trade with the rest of the world. He does not believe that foreign countries, via the WTO, should be able to tell us what we can and can not do with respect to our trade relationships. He does not support the US being involved with the politics of the rest of the world.
If you belive NAFTA has something to do with free trade I suggest you do some more research. It is managed trade at best, which Ron Paul does not support.
Your use of the word isolationism is clearly wrong given Ron Paul’s stances since he has never invoked protectionism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism) Ron Paul is correctly labeled as a non-interventionist.
No, sir, you are merely an apologist for bad policy ideas. These policies are put in place because they are compromises that our government agrees to in exchange for compromises from other governments. This is normal diplomacy which you, your candidate, and many of the other Ron Paul apologists don’t really seem to understand.
This is isolationism, as Ron Paul calls for a fence, policed borders, and refusal to make compromises in order to do business and diplomacy abroad.
“As the world grows technologically and economically, we must remember that we’re all part of this bigger picture. Ron Paul dismisses the value of globalization, and stresses strong senses of nationalism which I reject outright. I am not a nationalist by any stretch of the imagination. I am a U.S. citizen, and I am a world citizen as well. My faith and my reason dictate that I support government efforts to do good abroad, and to trade fairly around the world.
”
Take a good look at where we are now. We are now more isolated than ever before due to our flawed aggressive foreign policy. Look at current world opinion of the US policies and realize that there will be severe consequences for us unless we do something to stop the negative political will from building around the world.
As far as him being “racist” Please elaborate as to why you think he is so. He honestly is the only one who understands the true nature of racism and how to eliminate all forms of it. That is, individual liberty.
As far as birthright citizenship and immigration, i agree with you that we should strive to keep these things, however we cannot afford it at tye moment. Our economic situation prevents us from doing some things wed like to do. We cannot reward illegal immigration witheasy citizenship. Our tax dollars pay for the benefits for these people.
Sure. I agree that we’re more isolated now, but I don’t think that pulling out of NAFTA and WTO will fix this. I think re-evaluating our foreign policy will help.
I believe Ron Paul is a racist in the way that many Europeans are racists. They’re over-zealous nationalism causes them to be prejudiced–aggressively prejudiced in Ron Paul’s case–against folks who come from different places. Restricting citizenship and deporting millions of people flys in the face of individual liberty.
And as to your birthright citizenship and immigration point, economics are NEVER a good reason to restrict freedom or deny citizenship.
I find it amusing that bloggers who post about the most current “controversy” of Ron Paul are surprised by the amount of corrections they receive. This is the first Ron Paul blog entry I’ve posted on, and I do not know the other supporters. It is no coordinated “Ron Paul supporter effort” or even a “campaign worker” movement as many seem to believe, but merely individuals who believe in his ideas, fighting to ensure their accurate representation.
What I do frequently is read what is said about him, and keep an open mind to the questions posed.
Let’s see some proposed counts against him, first of all…
You have stated that he is racist, implied that he is isolationist, anti-globalization, and pro-nationalization.
First of all, I would like to see a reliable source which demonstrates that Ron Paul is racist. Ron Paul has criticized racism as a form of collectivism. The attribution of Ron Paul to a racist statement in a newsletter has been concluded to be a ghostwriter. If you’d like to fault Ron Paul for using a ghostwriter for something, that’s another story, but racist he’s not.
Never have I seen Ron Paul dismiss the idea of globalization. He is pro-trade, and against tariffs that are detrimental to foreign imports. He would rather trade with other countries than invade and co-opt their governments. Is that nationalist?
I also think there is some confusion as to Ron Paul’s stance on foreign nations: he is non-interventionist, not isolationist. He does not believe in shutting the U.S.’s borders to legal immigration or to trade. He does believe in the sovereignty of other nations’ governments. He also believes in withdrawing our troops from many areas. Why do we still have troops in Germany, for example? I lived in Germany for a year, and they are one of the most progressive, pacifistic nations in the modern world. Wouldn’t we resent it if, for example, China had troops stationed somewhere in the U.S. to monitor us? Not only is it arrogant of us to believe we have the right to police them, it is extremely costly and wastes resources.
Also, Ron Paul does not support the immediate deportation of millions. He has stated repeatedly that changes must be phased in over time. By this same token, he is not in favor of suddenly eliminating the welfare system either, but reducing it over time so that citizens have a chance to adjust. May I ask why you support illegal immigration? Is it because you believe it is too hard to become a legal citizen of the United States? In that case I would propose revisions to the citizenship laws, not financial support for illegal immigration.
If you’re in favor of technology and a free, globalized economy, Ron Paul is your man. He believes in disentangling government from business so that businesses can compete without a few of them receiving artificial boosts from the Federal Government. This leads to innovation and a self-regulating economy. What other candidate proposes to do this?
If you truly don’t support Ron Paul’s positions, I can respect that. But since you’re devoting time to denouncing him anyway, you might as well verify that you’re disagreeing with his actual positions. You might even like the guy in the process. Thanks for voicing your opinion!
Corrections? Devoting my time to denouncing him? I just posted one article and all of you guys flew out of the cuckoo’s nest man. I read what Ron Paul had on his campaign site, and I responded directly to that. If what he has on his site is incorrect that’s his own damned fault.
I do not like Ron Paul because his ideas on immigration and foreign trade are DANGEROUS, not because I hate the man. I don’t know what he’s like, and I really don’t care. The man is dangerous and should not be elected.
Kerry said it better than I did, however I wanted to be clear that we cant reward illegal citizenship. As Kerry so diplomatically and elquently said above, Ron Paul is in no way against legal citizenship.
Easy Chicken,
I had similar concerns as you do, however you must realize that some of this takes time to understand fully.
Kerry is just trying to clarify because it appears that you want the same things that Ron Paul is fighting for, but you dont quite understand his positions.
No, you didn’t. My concerns are ones of personal liberty. Kerry is trying to defend policies intended to restrict freedom of movement and freedom of commerce.
Which policies do I not understand? The one where he wants to back out of good-faith trade agreements or the part where he wants to stop letting people who were born here become citizens?
Remember, these are PEOPLE we’re talking about here. We’re talking about people who are suffering where they are, so in an effort to support their families they move where they have to in order to support their families. They’re not in need of reward, they don’t want a gift, they just want to be able to work.
I’m in favor of sane anti-illegal immigration policies,but stopping birthright citizenship and “phasing” a deportation of millions is just morally incorrect. These positions are indefensible.
Just because an agreement is titled “North American free trade aggreement” Doesnt mean it promotes free trade anymore than the Patriot Act is patriotic. Remember the recent food contamination issue of imported food? This is directly attributed to NAFTA. You can find numerous articles about this. CNN also did a story saying the same thing
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070726-01382300-bc-us-foodsafety.xml
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/naftacorn090704.cfm
As far as birthright citizenship, you’re telling me that if a couple comes across the border ILLEGALLY, gets pregnant, has children. Then all those people magically are granted citizenship and our tax dollars must pay for their welfare?
You seem to not make a distiction between illegal and legal immigration.
How can something that came about 150+ years after this country was founded by a fundemental principal?
you claim birthright citizenship is, yet that didn’t even occur until after we tried to word legislation in a manner that gave freed slaves the same rights as U.S. citizens.
EEKman: You bet your ass I’m saying that a baby in that case is a US citizen. Babies don’t choose where they’re born, so the consequences of their parents actions should not cause the baby to have any less right to citizenship than you or I have. And I see no distinction in legal or illegal immigration when it comes to innocent babies who have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Eric: I’m referring to common principals by today’s standards, not Ron Paul’s 150 years ago standards.
All of these “free trade” organizations are merely a group of men getting together deciding who gets what. Do you think putting huge tariffs on sugar cane and steel is “free trade”. Letting the lobbyists sweeten the pockets of the bigwigs who get to choose who gets rewarded and who gets punished?
Your idea of free trade is having a politician setting prices at McDonalds raising the prices on the burgers and lowering the price on the McChicken as he deems necessary. Oh, and he just happens to be related to the chicken farmer.
Ron Paul actually supports FREE trade. No more meetings of a bunch of guys deciding what prices YOU should pay for imported goods.
As far as immigration goes…first end the welfare state which encourages people to come here looking for a free handout, then we can talk about opening the borders.
Here is a short article in Pauls own words regarding birthright citizenship.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
Yes, and you’re arguing that we should restrict freedom for economic and “cultural” (read as racist) reasons. Shame on you for trying to justify such restrictions for purposes of money, and shame on you for advocating such restrictions on the basis of cultural diversity.
I am surprised that you would actually use that to support your argument in this way. If we had a better tax system then we’d be able to afford these hospital expenditures.
And before you go saying “well Ron Paul is for tax reform” or something else, please know that I will respond by saying that he’s still saying that we should restrict freedom for monetary purposes. Shame on him.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, secure the borders blah blah blah. You’re forgetting a fundamental problem though. The folks who are coming over undocumented (a much better word than illegal) are just trying to support their families. Shame on you for ignoring the humanity in this situation.
Chicken, I need to support my family too but I cant do that by robbing a bank now can I?
I want you to drive to your local hospital and ask If there are any “undocumented” immigrants there who are delivering and then I want you to personally offer to pay their hospital bills, because im having enough trouble trying to pay my own bills. Then keep doing that. Then invite them to live with you until they are on their feet. Then do it all over again, nevermind if your own bills are overdue, thats not important. Nevermind if your house gets reposessed, think of the children. Then when the hospitals close down because they cant afford to operate at all, then you can sell off your house and If you have any money at all left over you can open up a free clinic for all of us!
Keep me posted on your progress.
Wow, so you’re going to compare moving your family to another country to robbing a bank now, are you? That’s a pretty low blow, don’t you think?
You really think you’re better than people, don’t you? My position may be one that is a little harder to swallow than your opinion of superiority and entitlement, but at least my position enables me to consider myself a compassionate human being who cares about the well-being of others.
Shame on you for being so callous to the needs of your fellow human beings.
Eh, you need to learn the difference between isolation and non-intervention.
The reason people show up is because it shows up in google blog results and things like that, not because people are scouring the net.
I think you should learn what personal freedom is about, we are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. Plain democracy is where the majority rule over the minority, that is not what freedom is at all.
The candidates you support don’t follow the constitution. The constitution is the law the people have given the government to follow. When government doesn’t follow the constitution, then we have a lawless government.
The proper way to introduce the things democrats want to do is to add an amendment. For everything, not abuse the general welfare clause as your candidates do, which only bring special rights to those who have lobbyist and special interest groups. That is theft. You are taking from 1 person, and giving it to another against the will of the 1st person.
Im just asking you to prove your compassion, go to the hospital and offer to pay their bills. If you run out of money dont let that stop you, get a loan, then you can just keep doing that over and over right? Youll be the most compassionate person on the planet.
You once again dont see the difference between legal and illegal immigration. Did you read the link to Pauls position?
Really? I thought the constitution was merely the foundation of the government, not the whole thing.
If we stick to the constitution completely then we’ll not have laws to govern things like interstates, federal prison systems, international relations, etc.
I don’t think you thought your argument out very well.
Also, I am in support of an open border. I also realize that our social system and welfare state is a huge incentive for illegal immigration.
If we leave the borders open and keep the social services, then every poor person is going to come to this country, and the taxpayers will have to pay to house them, feed them and give them healthcare. We can’t even afford to give all American citizens healthcare and these services, we are going bankrupt. So it’s just foolish to keep those incentives and leave the border wide open.
We get 2 million new citizens every year into this country legally, and another 800,000 on work permits. Why should people who came here illegally be allowed to jump in line and get into the country before those who are waiting to get here legally? And what kind of message does that send?
And many people depend on those social services, so we can’t just get rid of them overnight. But we need to start getting people from depending on it asap. Until that time, we must secure the borders. Once the welfare incentives are gone, immigration will once again be as welcome in this country as it was in the past. And they won’t be a scapegoat for jobs that are going overseas. They do provide valuable labor that is needed, but it needs to be done the right way.
EEKman: Yeah, I did read the link. I find it ridiculous. To justify the restriction of freedom for monetary purposes is ridiculous. NO money argument will *EVER* justify the restriction of freedom. You and Ron Paul both have a screwed up definition of freedom.
badmedia: AGAIN, you’re using a holier-than-thou argument and money argument to restrict the freedom of people. No matter how much money it costs, and no matter how much better than them you think you are, these people deserve just as much freedom as you and I do.
People! People! Anyone who calls himself “manchicken” or a “questionably sane chicken” should never be taken seriously. His rants, raves and answers to polite responses paint this character for what he is. His blog is used primarily to goad Ron Paul supporters into defending someone who needs no defending. Instead of making a post about all of the wonderful things he likes about his preferred candidate(s), he takes unfounded potshots and twists & distorts the real positions of one of the few decent American’s left in politics. I expect as Ron Paul continues to gain in support, the cockroaches will come out in force with smear campaigns. Manchicken has proven himself to be a know-nothing clown. Let him support the war-mongers of his choice. Then he just may be FORCED to flee to Canada (where all American chickens belong) to escape the draft. Manchicken, please show your support of your favorite neocon war-monger by enlisting in the U.S. Army and shipping off to Irac. You would have all of our most humble gratitude.
STOP saying manchicken doesn’t see the “difference between legal and illegal immigration”. You people obviously can’t see a person who cares whether its illegal or legal! The ignorance is astounding.
And I thought I disagreed with manchicken on a lot of issues. You people are nut jobs!
Border supports who think everyone is trying to steal them are worse than criminal. This is the reason I would love to get our of here before the greed of you people over takes the country.
See, you don’t even know how the government works.
We have a LIMITED federal government, and much more power state governments(supposed to). The federal governments only purpose is to protect our rights, thats IT.
Interstates are handled by the states, not the federal government. Thats why you get that bump when you cross state lines.
International relations are foriegn policy, that is outlined in the articles of the constitution. Many of the other things are in the articles of the constitution, including taxing powers, judical system etc.
The 10th amendment states that any powers not specifically given to the federal government is passed on to the state, local and to the citizen. That is where you get roads and stuff. State governments have that power. And on the state level, you can do lots of other things. And you get alot of different programs. If 1 state does something bad, then only that state feels it, instead of the entire country. You as a person also have more power in your local governments, so you can get things changed for the better easy, not 4-8 years. When 1 state finds something that works, others pick it up. On a federal government, we get 1 program for everyone. It’s not a good plan, and it never works over large countries.
I think you should read the constitution. Everything can be answered by it. Also, you can click my name, on my blog I show how you can add things you want constitutionally with amendments, and not allow excessive amounts of unneeded government in the process.
Really? My blog is used primarily to goad Ron Paul supporters? You do know that this is the first day that I’ve EVER put a posting up relating to Ron Paul don’t you? You do know that this is usually a software-freedom blog, don’t you? Try reading some of the other posts.
Ron Paul is nowhere near a decent politician. He advocates the repudiation of what has been a long-time fundamental principal of our country, the right to be a citizen if you were born here.
I did not start a smear campaign here, you all merely started posting ridiculous arguments on my blog in an attempt to silence me, and then I just responded. I support no neo-con war-mongers as you may think I do, and I do not support the Iraq war.
It is now my sincere opinion that Ron Paul and his supporters are trolling blogs in search of those who disagree with their opinions, and then smearing and attempting to silence their opinions. Well sorry fellas, you’re not gonna have much luck with me.
I sincerely hope that you all gain some compassion for your fellow man. But until then, please find somewhere else to spread your misinformation. I’ve had about all I can take of your lies and distortion.
Who is restricting freedom? Paul is just advocating removing the incentives to BREAK.THE.LAW.
You apparently think we should have no immigration laws whatsoever. Just let anyone in and we will all pay their way!
You know what? I officially renounce my citizenship, I want to be an illegal immigrant. It would be a heck of a lot easier and cheaper to live, thats for sure.
EEKman: I think you need to put that in writing and send it to the State Department. The United States could sure use fewer uppity jerks who think they’re better than others. That’s for sure.
EEKman, why would it be cheaper? (because they “pay no taxes”).
You plan to live in the conditions at the wages they make, doing the jobs they must do? By all means go ahead. Maybe then you will stop being the person you are.
Fuck the border!
Why would you support a government where the people have limited rights, only the ones specifically listed? And even those are getting taken away.
Seriously, read the constitution. All the problems can be solved by following the system given to us from our founding fathers.
You call it racism, and thats just dump. Individual freedom applies to everyone, regardless of race, class or country. But you can’t give special rights to illegal aliens in a country they don’t belong to. Yes, we should treat them with every right american citizens have, and we should allow more immigrants, but you can’t just reward people for breaking the law, and it’s crazy to suggest it.
Either way, good luck and I hope you study up on the constitution and see why it is the most sacred document ever written in the history of governments.
You’re holding up our constitution like it’s our god-sent doctrine, and the founding father’s like they’re god. I reject this thinking.
Constitutional amendments weren’t enabled because the founding fathers knew that times would change; they were allowed because they knew that they were just normal people like the rest of us. They’re no smarter or better or wiser than we are. That’s why the 14th amendment, being a constitutional amendment is part of the constitution, must be protected as any other article in the constitution.
You talk about holding up the constitution, when your candidate wants to bastardize it to fit his own elitist and racist agenda.
EEkman,
After you renounce your citizenship, I’d love to hire you for minimum wage to do my job. Send me your resume.
Wow, you are right, that is simple, you just got offered a job!
EEkman,
Holy crap! You got offered a minimum wage job as an undocumented immigrant. Thats an amazing offer! Take it! Take it!
EEkman,
I am sure you already know this. But I must add you get no vacation, no sick leave, no health insurance, no life insurance, no retirement benefits, etc. Also, you’ll have to walk from Mexico each day as I won’t supply transportation.
Guys, I fully respect wanting to be compassionate. My family runs a garden design company in southern california and we employ alot of legal immigrant workers. They are wonderful, hardworking and honorable people. I volunteer in my community at goodwill and other charities freqently.
You are the people with a superiority complex. You are asking your fellow americans to care for illegal immigrants for free. You are asking hospitals to use their limited resources in a manner that is not sustainable. It is not about greed. It is not about profit. It is about survival. This practice cannot continue indefinately. Do you understand money is what keeps the hospital running? Money is what keeps the roads paved and the schools open? Money is what feeds and supports the hospital employees so they can continue working for all of us.
I say again, if you are SO compassionate as you claim you are, YOU pay the bills. Sponsor an undocumented family today.
EEkman,
Well I don’t know about a family, but I just said, I will gladly sponsor you, for minimum wage, no benefits, to do my job.
Jordan: You know what is sad?
Id take you up on that offer. I wouldnt have to pay taxes or rent. Or food for that matter because id have food stamps. Id also get unlimited free health care! No need to pay for it! Heck if i got sick id just quit and get unemployment, I dont need your sick time! Heck id have more money on minimum wage than I do now making 50k a year.
No, you don’t. You don’t respect our compassion. If you, too, were compassionate, then you would understand that compassion dictates that you help first and pay bills second. The United States has more than enough money to help people. If we adopted a sane tax reform that would stop rich people with hoards of tax attorneys from dodging taxes, we’d have even more money to help this problem.
You, sir, are not compassionate.
Sounds good. I’ll put money to universal health care, better public schools, better public transit and better roads. We’ll call it taxes. Which I pay and they pay, and anyone else who wants public services.
Now you can find other roads, other schools, other hospitals and other buses. But really, I’d like to force you to help pay
.
EEkman,
Since when do illegal immigrants get food stamps, free housing, and unemployment benefits?
EEKman,
why do you need to be illegal to do those things? Why not do it now… I am so confused. You have such a brilliant plan and yet don’t follow it.
Okay I will go through these comments one at a time, starting from the top.
@ Mike B.
Is Ron Paul for or against Globalization? He wants the United States to pursue a free trade, and our personal freedom is all the moral backbone we will need in talking with other nations. We wont back down to their demands, because that would restrict our freedom? Sure, that works in theory. But let’s be realistic for once. That is NOT how relationships work. That is NOT how trade works. That is NOT how society works. In fact, it is the very opposite. I suggest you all to read ‘Discourse On The Origins of Ineqaulity’ by Rousseau because this twisted idea of freedom is anarchy. Not democracy or a republic. I say no to anarchy, on general principle.
Ron Paul IS an isolationist. His idea that he wont back down, that our freedoms won’t be negotiated is not direct de jure isolatioism. But he will push everyone away with his attitude because nobody will want to work with us. Also, we have been through 8 years of this same idea, and I for one will not vote another Bush Administration into office. I used some foresight (unlike many) and realized that the ideas presented were dangerous (to quote Manchicken) and refused to follow him in 1999. This will happen if Ron Paul is President.
The word ‘Free Trade’ is in the word ‘NAFTA’. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym for more details.
@EEKMAN 10:35
Isolationism takes many forms. We are isolated now because we pushed all the countries away with our attitude of interventionism, bad foreign policy and unethical, if not outright illegal, business practices. Ron Paul says ‘let’s not deal with them at all’. Taking the route of 16th century Japan is not going to work for us.
More troubling however is your statement that “He honestly is the only one who understands the true nature of racism and how to eliminate all forms of it.”. If I misquoted you, please let me know, since this would indicate an inability to copy and paste. However back to the point. REALLY?!?! Ron Paul is the ONLY one? Wow! He should write a book, or run for president, or something. Okay I’m done mocking your sentence for the moment. But you did skip out on a very important point. Is Ron Paul FOR or AGAINST racism? You never said.
And to say ‘we cant afford it at this moment’ points to a larger problem than simply immigration. It points to a massive failure of a country as a whole, as one that’s about to collapse, than it does to immigration. More on this later.
@kerry 10:41
So he criticizes racism as a form of collectivism. BUT he NEVER criticizes it outright. Again, he does nothing to refute these charges. Of course, woe would be me to assume he was racist simply because he never says he isn’t but his policies imply it more than enough. Of course, woe would be me to believe a politicians words as well. This is my point. Politicians dancing around saying ‘racism is…. well collectivism…’ blah blah blah. Ron Paul is hardly able to admit that racism exists, or that it part of American culture. But I’m supposed to vote for him?
And the planned, slow movement of people out of the country? No sir! This is not WW2 Germany. Never, ever, have I kicked anyone out of my house. Never had told someone that they were unwanted. I have had many exchange students from all over the world, presidents of companies, neighbours from down the street, clergy, best friends and unknown strangers at my house for dinner. All of them have told me that they love my small house for the openness and warmth. And for the fact that we are accepting of people. No one has ever applauded me for moving people out, for being isolationist, for imposing barriers on people trying to come in. Yes, I have a home security system, but no, it’s never on because I’m always entertaining.
You speak of ‘illegal’ immigration, yet you do nothing to try and stop it. Why don’t you call Wal-Mart and yell at them for paying their workers 0 cents an hour. Literally, 0 cents an hour? Oh, because it’s a culture of despair and poverty? When the large companies moved in and dumped toxic waste into the air and water, it wasn’t illegal. When the USA started a war with Mexico over a trumped up border dispute, it wasn’t illegal. When the CIA subverted Allende and installed brutal dicatorships all over Latin America, it wasn’t illegal. What do you, or Ron Paul, or the majority of America for the matter, know about illegal? These immigrants are here because the IMF/World Bank force bad economic policy on their countries, for money which they use to try and alleviate the rampant poverty. Hint: It’s not working. Hint: The USA is the head of these policies and these institutions. Hint: You probably wont call this illegal. But it is illegal when a farmer can’t sell corn in his monocultural market, and leaves the country to try and eat somewhere else. But it’s perfectly legal for Coca-Cola to support fascism during WW2 and to use high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar, which would heavily boost the economies of the ‘illegal’ immigrants.
You sir, are a joke when you use the word ‘illegal’. Your little speech is so far removed from reality, that it merits little real consideration. Context is everything.
I am an American. I want to support the law. I don’t support a broken, backwards, racist system of economic suppression and bad policies in general. However, Ron Paul wouldn’t fix the problem. He would just block us off from it.
@ EEKMAN 11:06
The people come here to work. Simply because they are here, does not imply a welfare seeking dependant. They are here for a better life.
One quick question: Who is the largest demographic which is actually on welfare? During which time in the US history was the murder rate the highest.
Caucasians, and during the Great Depression.
You seem to not know the difference between good motives and bad motives. I am by no means a slave to Kant’s moral imperative, but you can’t simply ignore the role of the U.S. in causing these migration movements. It’s an exodus away from the conditions which we created, and that we’ve been perpetuating since the 1820’s.
@ Bill Moore 11:26:
So where does Ron Paul stand on OPEC as a group? How will he handle the energy/oil crisis. It is a crisis, and it will only get worse.
In short, Ron Paul is a horrible candidate for president.
@bad media 12:45
How can you so arrogantly invite people to read the Constitution and at the same time ignore and misrepresent the Commerce Clause at the same time!
Tristan and Jordan:
Ill quote you an excerpt from paul that I already posted a link to.
“Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.
Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits. ”
Eddie: Then they can do so LEGALLY. Just as the hardworking people My family employs do.
Dollar hegemony is also not sustainable. If we do not move to honest monetary policy (this involves opec) we will collapse economically.
Ron Paul will encourage and let the market and the people solve the energy crisis. He will use private property rights to encourage this. Government and beurocrats are not the people we should be turning to to solve this problem. The neo con solution to the energy crisis right now is unchecked military theft. How long do you think the world is going to put up with that?
I read to the word “racist” and had to laugh and quit. People really need to get their facts straight instead of spreading rumors.
Except that Ron Paul didn’t say anything about making legally immigrating into the US available to those who need it the most. It still costs a serious amount of money, and takes a long amount of time, and most of the folks who really are in need of the jobs they find here don’t have enough of either to spare for our corrupt immigration policies.
This is more justifying criminalizing people for what the righteously indignant want to use to hold themselves in higher regard.
EEkman,
Can you provide a real source(not a quote from Ron Paul) that says illegal immigrants are legally entitlement to food stamps, free housing, and unemployment benefits?
Manchicken:
How could you expect the American people negotiate through the WTO, when the American people have been shut out of the negotiation process? It’s as though you’re expecting the American people to openly speak/negotiate in Wal Mart’s or Halliburton’s closed door meetings.
The WTO was setup by mega-banks and mega-corporations, not only would you need a seat in their meetings, but you would need a mob vote to have any sway in their meetings; you would need a mob vote to make any changes to NAFTA & CAFTA, and you won’t ever get ONE measly vote, because you and others like you don’t have any power. That power was taken from you; the powers granted by the Constitution were taken from you.
The WTO has not and will not stop slavery in China, Mexico, & other countries (they’ve had plenty of time to do so, but they just won’t do so). On the other hand, America is being driven into debt; America is being broken depart and sold to the highest bidders. What more do you expect from all of this? A free America? An America without slavery and poverty? A healthy America without a fascist health care system? An America with freedom?
You can go on and on about how you are ‘ok’ with ‘legal’ immigration. It doesn’t matter to me. I know we are more open to immigrants than a lot of great countries, and I think its a good thing. But I do not care for borders. And I do not care for criminalizing these people, splitting up their families, etc, when many of their problems are made greater by this country. Are all their problems our fault? Of course not. Just had to make that clear so it wasn’t run with in that direction.
Flo: Can you provide me with evidence that shows Ron Paul as anything other than a self-righteous racist? His attack of the 14th amendment certainly supports my argument more than yours.
I’m still confused why EEK has not dropped everything and started living the way he describes above. He claims its better than the way he lives now… Who would not do that if it were true? Wait!? Does that mean its not true? Now did you a) lie b) quit your job?
Here is your sweet and merciful WTO/NAFTA at work:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20056614/site/newsweek/from/RS.5/
I guess most of you have grown up in this country and got everything easy.
Thats great you dont care for borders, but you dont understand, nor do you want to understand the seriousness of the economics behind why we need stronger borders at the moment. Our economic situation is temporary, and so we need to responsibly adjust. In a perfect world I would let everyone in this country in who wanted in and give them all a job, a house and free health care, but you know what? I want to fix my car and move to a bigger place myself, but just because I want something doesnt mean I can responsibly afford it.
Come talk to me when youve figured out how to pay back our 9 trillion dollars of debt then well all sit in a room and work out a utopian immigration policy.
I’m sorry, but that article doesn’t say anything about NAFTA or the WTO. That is Wal-Mart, private owned and publicly traded company. That is in no way relevant to this discussion. Please do better to stay on topic.
somequestion,
Everything I have seen on that issue does not properly research the facts it seems. I am very much against WalMart being anywhere. But claiming this volunteer issue as a reason can be used against you easily by people who support WalMart.
Allowing random people to make money by bagging groceries is a nice thing. It would be great if grocery stores allowed the unemployed to throw on vests and offer to carry your groceries to your car. But that wouldn’t work in the United States, because of the people, not the stores.
I see the bigger problem as what is brought up at the end of that article. Not the volunteers but the actual employees who are abused.
All the employee’s need better hours and better wages.
Manchicken, you had my respect for a few minutes there.
You’re just not properly identifying Paul’s free trade position [as many here have pointed out, Paul opposes WTO and NAFTA because he supports a more radical free trade position than those institutions and agreements currently allow], but you are definitely raising cogent points about his immigration stance. And you’re defending them well when questioned about them.
But then you have to go and blow it by whining about how Ron Paul supporters are trying to “silence” you. You posted something on your blog presumably because you wanted people to read it. People come to your blog, read it, and talk to you about it – and you’re pissed about this for some reason? I don’t think you understand this whole “blogging” thing. Getting visitors to come to your blog and interact with you is the whole point. No one is “silencing” you by reading your material and arguing with you about it. Toughen up a little bit.
And by the way, if you knew anything about libertarian theory or politics at all, you’d understand that Paul’s identification of racism as a collectivism is ITSELF the most complete denunciation of it he can make. There’s no need for further elaboration. Paul basically cribs Rand’s racism papers word for word, and “collectivism” is the #1 curse word in that lexicon.
So you weren’t born or raised in the US?
You don’t seem to get the point of compassion we’re raising here. You’re too busy raising yourself above those who weren’t able to support themselves to see the humanitarian issue here.
We don’t need stronger borders, we need a more diverse economy. We need less war, less corruption, less bigotry (such as that exhibited by yourself and Ron Paul), and simpler tax rules. Those things will help us pay off that debt as well as help others in need.
Helping people is more important than retaining wealth.
Um tristan, because that would be illegal and immoral to live in such a manner, I dont believe in living off of the backs of others. I dont expect other people to pay my way, nor do I coerce my fellow americans to pay the way of others.
Yes, less war, less military spending. And MAJOR increases on taxes for the rich, in all ways that they commonly do business. And I mean MAJOR! Plus more taxes on suburbs. Tax their gas more, their food more, their houses more. And send it all to the people. There are many places we can cut spending drastically and many places we can increase taxes drastically. I don’t think we’d have a problem balancing if we got someone in the office who would stand up to the rich.
Fluffy, the comment you are referring to is in response to a Ron Paul campaign worker who is trying to trash me personally by saying that my entire blog is intended to irritate Ron Paul supporters. You’re taking my comments in that comment a bit out of context, don’t you think?
I get the blog thing, I don’t think you get the honesty thing. I’ve been dealing with Ron Paul supporters trashing me all morning, and raising my page views more than ten times their normal numbers for a whole day in only seven hours. There has not been a single respectful Ron Paul supporter here. I’ve even seen Ron Paul supporters going into Digg and trying to reduce the diggs on my other articles. You sit there and tell me that Ron Paul supporters aren’t trying to issue consequences for my criticism and I’ll call you a damned liar.
Ron Paul should be ashamed of the way his supporters have behaved on my blog this morning and afternoon.
I think youre cofusing ‘debate you’ with ‘trashing you’
No one is attacking you personally. Its clear though that you think more emotionally than rationally. No offense.
EEKman: Really? Search upward and find Desert Rat’s last post. I think you’re not paying attention.
Thanks for an interesting article.
I disagree with your characterization of Ron Paul as a racist.
You keep saying shame on other people for this and that; well I say thanks for the interesting article, but shame on you for judging other people so personally.
We all want less poverty, more freedom for everyone. Just because you don’t agree with (or understand?) my opinions (or Ron Paul’s for that matteR) about what will achieve that (free market) doesn’t make it right for you to call me a bigot or something and say “Shame on you!”
Take it easy. I think you should be happy that all these “nasty” Ron Paul supporters showed up. Don’t you want your traffic to go up? Keep writing about Ron Paul and it will keep going up.
Have a nice day! I’ll check back in for further articles.
-Chad
Uh huh,
“There has not been a single respectful Ron Paul supporter here.”
Being overly dramatic are we?
Well, who DO you support for POTUS chicken?
Chad: I don’t recall saying anything about you or to you. I don’t even recall you posting here before.
And about wanting my traffic to go up, yes and no. I don’t measure the success of my blog in how much traffic I have. My goal instead is to carry on honest debate with honest people, and unfortunately all I’ve seen today is self-righteous apologetics from Ron Paul supporters.
EEKman: No, we’re not. All I have gotten from Ron Paul supporters this morning is “you must not understand” or “you’re a neocon war-mongerer” (please search and you will find both of those statements), and then of course the accusation that I am only set out to blast Ron Paul.
I suppose there is the possible exception of Sean this morning at 8:12, there hasn’t been a single respectful commenter from the Ron Paul camp.
If thats all you got from todays discussion chicken, then you are doing some serious cherrypicking.
Kerry, Chad, Tristan, Jordan, Mike, Bill, pretty much everyone here is being respectful. Yes even Jordan and Tristan who obviously disagree with me.
The possible exception being Desertfox, but seriously, if thats your definition of “disrespectful” then grow a backbone please. Youve thrown around more disrespectful statements than anyone else here.
Wow, another feeble attempt to paint Dr. Paul into a corner with the ever effective “Racist” tag.
Manchicken, Please do the requisite research and use the requisite intellectual honesty if you are going to Blog.
The web is filled with enough misinformed tripe as it is. Why would you go out of your way to add more?
There is no need to be Dr. Paul “apologist” at all since there is nothing to apologize for. His record is consistent, honest, and above all, constitutional. Dont you get it that it’s the job of all politicians to simply uphold that document that is the marker of our true success in the world?
Please go do the reserch and if you find that you simply disagree, then so be it. But dont disparage with false accusations of something as serious as “Racism” unless there is proof. It’s simply wrong and beneath you.
EEKman: A few of the folks you mentioned are actually not Ron Paul supporters. I was specifically speaking about Ron Paul supporters. Tristan and Jordan were most definitely not supporters.
I think we may be working from different perspectives on the word respectful though.
It is, in my opinion, disrespectful to approach someone who disagrees with you and tell them that they just don’t understand just because they disagree with you. Today I’ve had several people (including some of those you’ve mentioned) tell me that I must just not understand because I don’t agree. This implies that if I understood then I would logically agree. This is very disrespectful.
As far as me throwing around the disrespect, sir, you don’t seem to understand that this is my blog. These are my opinions. I pay the bills around here, and I write the articles. If you don’t like my opinion and you don’t feel that I’ve been respectful in the face of MUCH disrespectful, tough. Go cry elsewhere.
You Ron Paul supporters couldn’t sway my opinion, so you tried belittling me into agreeing with you, and now that you’ve realized that’s not working you’re burying my digg posts and you’re accusing me of personal attacks–which I admittedly am making now–and having no backbone. As far as I can tell Ron Paul and his supporters deserve no respect, you’re all just a brainwashed pack of idiots searching blots to attack those who disagree with you.
My only mistake was replying to any of the poppycock I’ve seen commented on my blog today.
shrugged: Dr. Paul’s stance against the 14th amendment is pretty clear racism to most Americans, sir.
Tristan Sloughter:
Why do you think major tax increases for the rich is a good idea? that is one of the worst ideas ever. Haven’t you ever read Atlas Shrugged?
Me: You do know that Atlas Shrugged was a work of fiction… don’t you?
You people are a lost cause…don’t take that personally
Opposition to an ammendment that impacts al, races, colors and creeds (Yes, even white european immigrants, is hardly deserving of the “Racism” tag that you throw around so lightly.
If you could do even an ounce of in depth reserch, you will clearly see that the one and only motive for ALL of dr. pauls votes and issue stances are rooted in one simple and non-veering fact.
The constitution.
Now I will listen and debate with candor and honestly with you all day long if you have a different point bof view on the constitutionality of the 14th ammendment. That I can respect fully, even if I disagree with you.
What I have zero respect for, and what angers most of us, is that you pull the Race card when facts dictate otherwise, in fact, very clearly. All you do is escalate the animosity by doing that.
once again, I can see that you are most likely a good person at heart, and the tact you ntake here is certainly beneath you (I hope thats true at least)
“Ron Paul, however, will never receive my support as I see him as a racist politician trying to shut the US off from the rest of the world.”
First off, Dr. Paul does NOT want to shut us off from the rest of the world. He believes in FREE TRADE and diplomacy unlike most Republicans and all Dems who favor the unneccesary War in Iraq and government-managed trade. Second, there is nothing racist about punishing individuals who break the law and benefit from our social services for FREE. I don’t care if theyre white, black, or purple.
“I don’t think that shutting our economy off from the rest of the world by backing out of NAFTA or WTO would be good for us or the world.”
He wants our trade to actually be free rather than these agreements which favor specific corporations and industries. There are actually more requests through NAFTA to limit free trade and erect trade barriers than to lower them!
Ron Paul also does not support “nationalism”. He sees is as a form of collectivism which encourages racism, discourages free trade, and hurts everyone in our nation
Please do some research
LOL…ugggh. sorry for all the typos in my last post. Me Dummy!
Manchicken, you seem to misunderstand the motivations behind Dr. Paul’s votes. Example: He voted against a medal for Ronald Reagan, a dear friend of his. Why? Was it because he disliked President Reagan? Was it because he thought Reagan was undeserving? No. Because it would have cost the taxpayers’ $30,000. That sounds like a small sum compared to the trillions that our government wastes every year, but he is a man of principle. Instead, he offered to put up $100 of his own money to fund the medal and asked his fellow Congressmen and Congresswomen to help foot the bill and save the taxpayers…no one took him up on his offer. But you would probably take one look at the vote and say “Ron Paul doesn’t like Ronald Reagan”. Please look deeper
It seems your blog is not a place for rational argument and debate, since approaching your blog in this manner has no effect on you.
It is therefore impossible to debate with you, since you base your arguments on emotion rather than logic.
I enjoyed the discussion today, I wish you success on your blog. Good day.
Tim: Why do you assume that I don’t understand? Why do you insist that it is impossible for me to come to these conclusions having fully understood the circumstances?
EEKman: I have also enjoyed the days events, and I wish you luck in your Ron Paul campaign career. Hopefully it doesn’t turn out to be as long as Lyndon LaRouche’s has been.
I wonder where you got your information. Ron Paul is not an isolationist at all. Unless you call peace isolationist and war all-embracing. Participation in WTO, NAFTA, etc are in no-way about opening our economy and allowing free-trade. Free-trade does not require “Agreements” or committees to approve certain rules and regulations. Ron Paul has said for 20 years to follow the advice of the founders: “Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” I think you are seriously misinformed. Please check youtube, his debate speeches, meetup rally speeches/videos and even ronpaul2008.com. Word of advice: when publishing opinion articles, it is a good idea to reference your sources of information. Especially when you’re accusing someone of saying certain things and holding certain views.
Scudiac: Please stop ignorantly asserting that I do not understand. My understanding of Dr. Paul’s policy ideas come straight from his very own campaign website.
Back-up your claim. Please show me where Ron Paul says “I am an isolationist and I want the US cut off from the world.” Or at least what information you read/watched that made you think this.
Scudiac: Certainly, here are my sources…
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
In this article Ron Paul expresses that we need to avoid getting involved with other nations–including for humanitarian reasons–and asserts that we need to stop engaging in humanitarian agreements with other nations. He also asserts that US troops should never be used as peace-keeping forces abroad in cooperation with the U.N.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/
In this article, he claims that the United States–particularly American soldiers–should not be held accountable to an international court system (the ICC). He goes on in the same first sentence to declare the WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA threats to US sovereignty and independence. This is obviously a steaming pile. There’s no such thing as independence in this world we live in.
There’s your rationale.
Defends Scudiac:
Manchicken is the ignorant one me thinks.
rather than defending against any of the points made by Scudiac, all we get is the weak tact of “How dare you say I dont understand because of course I do”
again, if you are gonna blog at least defend your points cogently and with intellect
and those references somehow make him isolationist?
Oh, ok! whatever, this blog is a joke.
I thought at first we were dealing with an intelligent adult.
fooled me
oh, my favorite line..
‘There’s no such thing as independence in this world we live in.”
lmao!!!
Hi, I work for an international business and have been all around the world and can tell you beyond any doubt that Ron Paul is correct about trade. Governments bodies do nothing but create conflict (politicians feed off of conflict and fear, not solutions) and funnel power and money to already rich and powerful corporations. These bodies are run by politicians and are not in the best interest of the average person but are run for their own interests and the interest of their buddies who will pay them back one way or another.
Peace and prosperity rapidly increases between nations and people when these government bodies get out of the way and let people do business and trade with one another without another set of unacountable international politicians telling them what they can and cannot do. I have seen this unfortunate situation all too often with my own eyes.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Shrugged: If you think that the US economy could survive without foreign countries then you’re fooling yourself. Most of our large businesses are multinational and require that extra revenue to support their job base.
So, I should vote for someone who is a member of the CFR?
A real corrupt politican. Like Clinton, Obama, Guiliani? One who loves war, and profits from it. I don’t think so. Ron Paul is the best choice for this country. Get a grip El Pollo Loco.
Ron Paul is not against trading with foreign countries.
World Government = Communism. Is that what you want?
Winnie: Could you please share with me what leads you to believe that all of those candidates you mentioned love war and profit from it? If you provide me with some authoritative sources I will most certainly publish this information on my blog.
NH: What makes you think that the only possible world government could be communism? That doesn’t sound like the most sound reasoning to me.
Get on the bandwagon my friend…you don’t have to aggree with everything just principals!!!!
RON PAUL 2008!!!!!!
George: Due to the fact that I believe that Ron Paul will severely damage the United States, I will most certainly not be getting on this bandwagon. So sorry.
Shrugged: If you think that the US economy could survive without foreign countries then you’re fooling yourself. Most of our large businesses are multinational and require that extra revenue to support their job base.
OMG! Are you really this dense or is it a cry for attention? There has been numerous posts just within this blog, not to mention the THOUSANDS of web resources that belie your silly claim. Where has he ever said that we shouldnt have “REAL” free trade with all friendly nations? NAFTA WTO UN etc are anything but…FREE.
sheesh, I am appalled by your seemingly intentional ineptitude and outright lack of intellectual honesty.
You are definitely a waste of time to debate with sice you dont know how to debate in the slightest
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
^ The article mentions nothing about humanitarian efforts. But, I will say that the US does not have constitutional power to police the world, engage in nation-building, etc. Ron Paul says this as well. Foreign-aid does not mean “humanitarian efforts.” I think you may misunderstand what Ron Paul means when he says “entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations.” This does not mean cutting ourselves off from them economically. It means trade with them, talk with them, but never go to war, get involved in the politics of other governments, or topple regimes.
As far as peace-keeping with the US military and the UN, this again has nothing to do with your assertion that Ron Paul wants to be cut-off from the world. He doesn’t want the US military involved in policing the world. How do you keep the peace with violence?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/
^ He never says that “merican soldiers–should not be held accountable to an international court system (the ICC).” The quote is: “The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals.” Ron Paul says that these groups hinder free-trade and prevent economic progress with all nations. These groups are protectionist rackets aimed at regulating competition and reducing market forces, all the while making the US (and other involved nations) comply with certain rules to continue membership. This is not free-trade. This is managed-trade at best. The statement: “There’s no such thing as independence in this world we live in.” has to be the most asinine thing I’ve read on this site. Do you not consider yourself independent? If not, to whom do you belong?
These are all world-wide organizations that other nations have come to agree with our nation on. You can’t just walk up to a bargaining table with normal market customs in place and hope to trade outside of them. Trade abroad is not just a business transaction, it is a diplomatic one as well.
I still fail to see how an agreement that the United States entered into freely is somehow not free. These are treaties, and should be respected just as much as any other treaty. The United Nations is an essential–though often out of line–organization on the world stage today. Unicef alone provides food and clothing and shelter to millions of people in poverty. The United Nations helps to provide a forum and platform for diplomacy internationally.
There are problems with many of these agreements and organizations, but if we unilaterally withdraw from these treaties and organizations, we will have quite effectively cut ourselves off from the rest of the world.
I suppose the Ron Paul blinders may make it hard to see this, but go ask any German or Chinese or Brazillian or English or South African citizen what they think of this matter. I’m sure you’ll find that the rest of the world wants us to abide by our agreements and fix problems rather than running away from them.
Manchicken (in regards to war-mongering republicans), did you not see any of the republican debates? Ron Paul made a closing argument in the NH debate where he said the most pressing moral issue in the country is that not one person on this stage (besides Ron Paul)is willing to take a nuclear preemptive first-strike off the table.
Have you taken to censoring the comments all ready? some of my comments have yet to show-up, but when I re-submit, it says they have already been submitted
Granted, this is your blog and you can delete/add whatever you like. I was just curious.
“: If you think that the US economy could survive without foreign countries then you’re fooling yourself. Most of our large businesses are multinational and require that extra revenue to support their job base.”
hahahha. Dude, what do you not get here. Free trade exists without these non-free trade agreements. We would have FREER trade. You’re either intentionally trying to smear Paul as a protectionist or you are without hope
World government reveals itself as an incredibly bad idea when one understands human nature.
“Man will strive to meet his needs according to the path of least exertion”
“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Scudiac: Sorry about the delay on your comments, but please note, comments with two or more links are automatically held for moderation as a spam prevention measure. Your comment has been approved through moderation.
As to the war-mongering, many of the candidates that were mentioned were not republicans.
Tim: Do you not get it? If we back out of these agreements the rest of the world will refuse to do business with us.
TwinkeD: Those are some really nice quotes, but they don’t do much to make a valid point here. Please hang up and try again.
Wow, This guy (or lady, I suppose) is in way over their head in this one.
It’s a shame
I really appreciate these discussions, and if you wish to continue amongst yourselves, that’s cool. I, on the other hand, need to go eat spicy food with my pregnant wife, and enjoy the freedom that I am entitled to due to my citizenship through birthright. Have a good day everybody, and enjoy your evening.
manchicken lives up to the handle
Scudiac: You’re absolutely right. The Ron Paul kool-aid drinkers are out in full-force, and it’s a bit of a chore keeping up with it. I sincerely hope that the world gets a good look at what Ron Paul and his supporters are for though. With the exception of you and a guy before you named Sean, I think most of the comments have been rather disappointing.
I wish you all well in your campaign, but I sincerely hope that a better candidate is elected in 2008. I want to make sure that my unborn child gets guaranteed citizenship when they are born, and I hope that every woman who gives birth on US soil can have the same guarantee.
I apologize for jumping the gun about the censorship. I did not realize you were approving comments by hand.
As an aside, what is so great about citizenship (in general)?
“As to the war-mongering, many of the candidates that were mentioned were not republicans.”
Chicken: Add Obama into the other pile of republicans who said “you dont take options off the table” regarding a preemptive nuclear strike
Chris dodd: U.S. sanctions are not enough, so the international community must enforce U.N. sanctions, including a resolution calling for disarming Hezbollah, an Islamic militant group Washington says is armed and financed by Iran.
Sorry, economic sanctions are acts of war.
TwinkeD: You do know that neither of the two people you just mentioned are Republicans, do you? And not taking options off of the table doesn’t make you a war-monger. Economic sanctions are not an act of war, they are bargaining chips of diplomacy.
Now I really must be going. Have a good evening.
“Do you not get it? If we back out of these agreements the rest of the world will refuse to do business with us.”
I think you are entirely wrong here. Why would world companies do this? The US is a huge market. Do you really think non-US companies prefer high-tariffs, artificial price-constraints, high business taxes, etc? This would spur competition and trade, not hinder it.
Ok do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Obama and Dodd are two candidates you support, they are also democrat. They also support acts of aggression against sovereign states who are not a national security threat. Sorry, anyone who thinks a pre-emptive nuclear strike aganist anyone should be “left on the table” needs their head examined.
If you think economic sanctions are not an act of war you discredit yourself and your claim that you are “compassionate”
Our sactions in iraq were responsible for over a half a million deaths of iraqi children. This is diplomacy to you?
Wow! All you Ron Paul supporters are making the ManChicken work his ass off! I don’t think he’s having that much fun anymore. But then, promoting Socialist viewpoints like Mr. ManChicken is always a drag because it has to be FORCED on people. Liberty and personal responsibility is natural, Socialism is not. Say, I have an idea. Why don’t all those poor “undocumented workers” (read ILLEGAL!)who just want to feed their families, stay in their own country, revolt against their corrupt government, establish a republic, and then go about pursuing life, liberty, and happiness right there where they belong. You know, just like happened in this country circa 1776.
“I wish you all well in your campaign, but I sincerely hope that a better candidate is elected in 2008. I want to make sure that my unborn child gets guaranteed citizenship when they are born, and I hope that every woman who gives birth on US soil can have the same guarantee.”
Oh I get it now! Youre an illegal immigrant! It all makes sense now.
“Oh I get it now! Youre an illegal immigrant! It all makes sense now.”
There are no “illegal” immigrants. Just people. People trying to make a better life for themselves by coming this country that is suppose to be free.
Ron Paul is a real politician indeed!
He attacks the how, and ignored the who and why.
We’re not campaign workers. Ron Paul doesn’t have to pay people to support him.
manchicken, you are an apologist and proponent of failed policies.
Real median wages in the US are lower now than they were 35 years ago, despite massive gains in productivity.
Americans’ savings rates are at the lowest they’ve ever been: they are in the negative.
America is now unable to pay for the social security commitments it has made. They are now at $60 trillion. Almost all of that will go unpaid.
People like you excusing government coercion and calcification are the cause of this.
Government has nothing. It only is able to provide things by taking them from someone else. Government is coercion. Ron Paul wants to reduce coercion.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
-George Washington
To advocate government programs is to advocate coercion against innocent individuals. Nothing, absolutely nothing, justified coercion.
Manchicken,
I volunteer at RP HQ in Arlington, VA about once a week.
Believe me, the campaign staff has zero time to surf blogs, even blogs as prominent and well-known as yours. And there are no paid blog trollers.
What you are seeing is a true grassroots phenomenon. It will elect the next president of the United States, Ron Paul, and change this country forever.
Buckwheat, sir, I don’t doubt that he’ll change this country forever. I just think the change will be bad. I also think this country has had enough of Texas republicans for a while. Good luck with the campaign, but I sincerely doubt that Ron Paul has a snowball’s chance in hell of even making the Republican nomination.
“texas republicans”? That’s even worse than your racist stereotype! What exactly does Bush and Paul have in common? Way to judge!
Please use real arguments instead of comparing Dr. Ron Paul with bush… bush (the Connecticut republican) is closer to guliani and hillary than to anyone else. And based on the stupid things coming out of obama’s mouth lately regarding Pakistan, I believe that obama is totally out of his league.
Also, please do not let the overused term “racism” roll out of your mouth like a dirty cigarette butt. This oft-used term merely diminishes from the true racism occuring as a result of our INTERVENTIONALIST policies. Ron Paul is exactly who we need in the White House to help restore our Constitution and redeem America.
M