News Vote Republican: Support Senator Ron Paul!

[slugcountry]

You know, patriotism does not have to be a bad thing.

Would you even be able to talk like this in Russia?

I don't mean to completely simplify your points like this but this is what it boils down to in my opinion.

Patriotism IS a bad thing. Standing for principles is good, standing for a nation, government or other power is BS.

50 years ago you wouldn't be able to talk this way in Russia, no. This is exactly my point, people shouldn't be forced to live in a ****ty place, let them come here and live a better life.

You talk of national economies and technological power but you're forgetting about PEOPLE... above all governments are SUPPOSED to protect people, not the other way around.

As for respect for this country... I have respect for the Bill of Rights and the pre-amble to the declaration for independence. Principles - Something the corporate paid leaders of this country forgot a long, long time ago.

 

[slugcountry]

If you truly dislike it so much, why don't you head back to Russia?

Real mature by the way.

You were born here with all the rights and privileges of being a US citizen. I worked my ass off and earned those rights.

Its very easy to talk about economic strength and denying opportunity to others when you're sitting King of the Hill.

In essence this is why there is STILL ethnic cleansing going on in Darfur - not that someone like you would give a S.

By the way... just to stay somewhat on the tppic of this thread... vote republican!? you'd have to be crazy. A little quote off CNN today:

In the book, Greenspan wrote that Bush essentially left an unbridled GOP Congress to spend money however it saw fit, and by not vetoing a single bill in six years, the president deprived the nation of checks and balances.

"The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan wrote. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

 

[Maxwell]

I don't mean to completely simplify your points like this but this is what it boils down to in my opinion.

Patriotism IS a bad thing. Standing for principles is good, standing for a nation, government or other power is BS.

You talk of national economies and technological power but you're forgetting about PEOPLE... above all governments are SUPPOSED to protect people, not the other way around.

I think you're romanticizing the situation. You're absolutely correct -- governments are supposed to protect the people -- their CITIZENS. Now, this is accomplished through maintaining a strong economy so people are able to work, invest their money, and provide for their families.

The main idea is that we want people to be as self-sufficient as possible. And for those citizens who do need our help, we should be there for them. But if we allow every single person into the country, the logistics of trying to help everyone is just impossible.

50 years ago you wouldn't be able to talk this way in Russia, no. This is exactly my point, people shouldn't be forced to live in a ****ty place, let them come here and live a better life.

If we let everyone come here, then EVERYONE will end up living in a ****ty place. That's why it's important to define borders and regulate who can enter the country -- so we can help those citizens who do need help.

As for respect for this country... I have respect for the Bill of Rights and the pre-amble to the declaration for independence. Principles - Something the corporate paid leaders of this country forgot a long, long time ago.

It's nice to see you respect those documents -- I do as well. The beautiful thing about this country is that despite who is in power at the time, if the citizenry is truly upset, we can make the necessary changes over time.

But in general, I have respect for this country as a whole. It has been very hospitable for my family.

Real mature by the way.

My statement about returning to Russia may have seemed more hostile than I meant it to. I'm not one of those people who believes that any person who disagrees with the current policies of this country should leave. You are entitled to say and feel however you want.

You were born here with all the rights and privileges of being a US citizen. I worked my ass off and earned those rights.

That doesn't make your argument any more valid. I admire your hard work, but I don't believe that your arguments are stronger because you were not born in the U.S.

Its very easy to talk about economic strength and denying opportunity to others when you're sitting King of the Hill.

It's not easy -- it's necessary. To be very blunt: my loyalty is first to this country and it's well-being. I want this country to be as strong and healthy as it can be so my family is safe (in all facets of the word, health care-wise, etc) and prosperous.

It may seem selfish, but it's honest. And if you asked any other person in the world the same question, they'd always tell you they want the best for their family. I care very much about other people -- my first concern (after my family) is the well-being of the citizens of this country.

In essence this is why there is STILL ethnic cleansing going on in Darfur - not that you give a S.

I do care about the situation in Darfur. I really, really do. However, I don't see what my position has to do with the ethnic cleansing going on in the Sudan.

Are you implying that by being concerned with the status of undocumented people running around in this country I am somehow contributing to the ethnic genocide in Darfur?

 

[slugcountry]

i'm far too lazy to address every thing you just said I'm not gunna lie, but as for your last point it is your indifference to other people's struggles that implies you don't care about what's going on in darfur... I'm sure you DO care about what's going on, but you see the parallel I'm sure... most nations are denying sanctuary to refugees from darfur.. in fact israel is the only country ACCEPTING them. Why? Again, because Jewish refugees were condemned to DEATH when many countries INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA refused to grant sanctuary to refugees of a GENOCIDE.

FFS I have compassion for people all over the earth, not just those living in America. I certainly don't believe that an American life is worth any more than an African one just because America is economically better off. Life is life.

And take this last point as you will but as someone who earned my citizenship, I can appreciate what it actually means. And as someone who immigrated to this country I have a more worldly perspective. This is pretty evident in the way you seem to value Americans as more worthy of a good life than other people.

 

[Maxwell]

i'm far too lazy to address every thing you just said I'm not gunna lie, but as for your last point it is your indifference to other people's struggles that implies you don't care about what's going on in darfur... I'm sure you DO care about what's going on, but you see the parallel I'm sure... most nations are denying sanctuary to refugees from darfur.. in fact israel is the only country ACCEPTING them. Why? Again, because Jewish refugees were condemned to DEATH when many countries INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA refused to grant sanctuary to refugees of a GENOCIDE.

Well, you aren't going to provide statistics,but I'd be curious as to how many refugees from Darfur have been turned away from the US. I'd wager it's not many, if an at all.

However, this is all beside the point. We are discussing the USA's immigration policy. We aren't discussing genocides. Again, you're pulling out the heart-string tugging red herrings.

FFS I have compassion for people all over the earth, not just those living in America. I certainly don't believe that an American life is worth any more than an African one just because America is economically better off. Life is life.

I have compassion for people all over the Earth too. I NEVER said I believe an American life is worth more than an African one. That is not for me to say.

However, ignoring your straw-man genocide comments, I can say that on the list of priorities, maintaining a strong immigration policy is very important to the US. We can not just let in every single person who wants to come here.

These are two separate issues -- refugees from the genocide and allowing any person to enter the US whenever they want -- and you're just using the situation in Darfur to provide a red-herring to take away from the main issue here.

And take this last point as you will but as someone who earned my citizenship, I can appreciate what it actually means. And as someone who immigrated to this country I have a more worldly perspective. This is pretty evident in the way you seem to value Americans as more worthy of a good life than other people.

Again, being an immigrant is not the only way to get a worldly perspective.

Let me give you this spin -- because I was born here, and my family has been here for a long time, this is not just a place I ran to when times were bad in my home country. This is not a country where I am just staying until things get better in my homeland. This is a country I cherish, through the good times and bad, and I have a lot of stock in how this country fares. My children will live here, and their children after them. I have a very vested interest in how this country does in this world. That's why I am passionate about the issues regarding this country. That's why I don't want every single downtrodden person in the world to enter this country.

My children do not need to inherit the debt and poverty of the world. We can lend help to foreign countries so that they can provide for their citizens -- I am not a complete isolationist -- but I believe we must protect this country.

If you are not going to reply to my entire posts, at least read and consider them them, please.

 

[slugcountry]

Let me give you this spin -- because I was born here, and my family has been here for a long time, this is not just a place I ran to when times were bad in my home country. This is not a country where I am just staying until things get better in my homeland. This is a country I cherish, through the good times and bad, and I have a lot of stock in how this country fares. My children will live here, and their children after them. I have a very vested interest in how this country does in this world. That's why I am passionate about the issues regarding this country. That's why I don't want every single downtrodden person in the world to enter this country.

See this is what I'm talking about. You don't understand the commitment of citizenship at all. This isn't just something I'm doing "until things get better" in my home country. Citizenship is a serious thing, and in taking it on I take on all the responsibilities you've mentioned. I even make myself vulnerable to a draft if this bull**** in Iraq ever comes down to that. I've been living here for 17 years now. Believe me I have a pretty vested interest in how this country fares. I however don't believe it has the right to deport people like (for example) elian gonzales because he was from cuba. or mexicans coming across the border for better economic opportunity. I'll say it again: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Inalienable rights. That means even the U.S. Government shouldn't have a say in who gets them and who doesn't.

 

[Maxwell]

See this is what I'm talking about. You don't understand the commitment of citizenship at all. This isn't just something I'm doing "until things get better" in my home country. Citizenship is a serious thing, and in taking it on I take on all the responsibilities you've mentioned. I even make myself vulnerable to a draft if this bull**** in Iraq ever comes down to that. I've been living here for 17 years now. Believe me I have a pretty vested interest in how this country fares. I however don't believe it has the right to deport people like (for example) elian gonzales because he was from cuba. or mexicans coming across the border for better economic opportunity. I'll say it again: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Inalienable rights. That means even the U.S. Government shouldn't have a say in who gets them and who doesn't.

One -- I was not talking about you in the quoted section.

If you were truly vested in the interests of this country, you would not be spouting empty rhetoric arguing for complete anarchy within these borders.

Two -- Have you not been listening to what I've been saying? It is unreasonable and ridiculous to allow untold amounts of people into ANY country. The logistics of caring for all of them would destroy this country.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a right that all citizens of this country are guaranteed. It is not an argument for completely destructing the borders of this country. If we allowed every single person into this country, life and liberty would be completely annihilated and no one would be able to pursue happiness.

What you want is not practical. It's something that we can both agree would be nice, but this is reality.

 

[Art]

Out of curiosity anyone know what % of the US's total population of American citizenship holders are descended from immigrants or are themselves naturalized immigrants?

 

[slugcountry]

Out of curiosity anyone know what % of the US's total population of American citizenship holders are descended from immigrants or are themselves naturalized immigrants?

are you kidding? 99.999% the remainder are native americans who are sadly a dwindling minority (largely due to U.S. government efforts to wipe them out... i think ending about a hundred years ago though I'm probably wrong on that).

The U.S. was birthed from immigrants that came from Europe...

 

[Art]

are you kidding? 99.999% the remainder are native americans who are sadly a dwindling minority (largely due to U.S. government efforts to wipe them out... i think ending about a hundred years ago though I'm probably wrong on that).

The U.S. was birthed from immigrants that came from Europe...

Presumably it is that 0.001% who are complaining so much about all these new immigrants as surely people would not be so hypocritical as to deny the same opportunity to others as was afforded to them and their forefathers? What happened to "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."?

The same arguments touted today to oppose immigration are the same baseless arguments used many times before as each successive wave of immigrants hit America's shores. The Irish, the Italians, the Germans, the Vietnamese etc... Yet all of these people integrated into American society very quickly and contributed immensely to the growth of America as a nation both economically and when necessary militarily.

The final recourse of those who would deny others the opportunities they themselves have availed of is to hide behind the illegality issue of the immigration. Well the slaves who escaped through the underground railway acted illegally and those Jews who fled persecution in Nazi Germany acted illegally but history shows it wasn't them but rather the laws which were wrong.

 

[slugcountry]

Presumably it is that 0.001% who are complaining so much about all these new immigrants as surely people would not be so hypocritical as to deny the same opportunity to others as was afforded to them and their fore-fathers?

Indeed.. presumably

 

[BobG]

Presumably it is that 0.001% who are complaining so much about all these new immigrants as surely people would not be so hypocritical as to deny the same opportunity to others as was afforded to them and their forefathers? What happened to "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."?

The same arguments touted today to oppose immigration are the same baseless arguments used many times before as each successive wave of immigrants hit America's shores. The Irish, the Italians, the Germans, the Vietnamese etc... Yet all of these people integrated into American society very quickly and contributed immensely to the growth of America as a nation both economically and when necessary militarily.

The final recourse of those who would deny others the opportunities they themselves have availed of is to hide behind the illegality issue of the immigration. Well the slaves who escaped through the underground railway acted illegally and those Jews who fled persecution in Nazi Germany acted illegally but history shows it wasn't them but rather the laws which were wrong.

Whether the arguments are hypocritical or not is irrelevant to their validity.

You could say the same thing about the eco-fanatics on Easter Island that tried to prevent residents from cutting down the last few remaining trees (if eco-fanatics did exist on Easter Island). It would be unfair to deny trees to current residents because of the poor planning of past residents.

You could say the same thing about Social Security recipients. It would be particularly dastardly to require them to support yesterday's old via taxes for their entire working life and then deny or cut their Social Security benefits because today's young don't like devoting such a large chunk of their paycheck to supporting today's old.

In fact, you could say the same thing about many US companies. They promised pension benefits in the future to settle labor disputes in the present, then claim they can't afford to abide by the promises they made yesterday. It's flat out criminal for them to back out on those promises today, but keeping those promises means going out of business resulting in both current jobs and the promised benefits going up in smoke.

 

[proton]

Presumably it is that 0.001% who are complaining so much about all these new immigrants as surely people would not be so hypocritical as to deny the same opportunity to others as was afforded to them and their forefathers? What happened to "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."?

The same arguments touted today to oppose immigration are the same baseless arguments used many times before as each successive wave of immigrants hit America's shores. The Irish, the Italians, the Germans, the Vietnamese etc... Yet all of these people integrated into American society very quickly and contributed immensely to the growth of America as a nation both economically and when necessary militarily.

Theres a lot of opposition to ILLEGAL immigration. I got no problem if all those mesicans came here LEGALLY, but theyre not. If the illegal immigrants can come into this country so easily, then so can terrorists. Plus, the illegals don't plan on integrating into american society, hence they wave mexican flags during their protests. They just want to use America as a means to feed their starving families.

 

[slugcountry]

They just want to use America as a means to feed their starving families.

Yeah how evil of them.

 

[BobG]

Theres a lot of opposition to ILLEGAL immigration. I got no problem if all those mesicans came here LEGALLY, but theyre not. If the illegal immigrants can come into this country so easily, then so can terrorists. Plus, the illegals don't plan on integrating into american society, hence they wave mexican flags during their protests. They just want to use America as a means to feed their starving families.

If the US does a better job screening those coming here legally, then the threat of terrorists sneaking in over the border might become a realistic threat. So far, most terrorist attacks in the US have been by Americans and any attacks by foreigners have been by those here in the US legally.

Your major terrorist groups in the US:

KuKluxKlan could probably be considered in the same league as terrorists, though they're usually considered to be a hate group (not sure of the difference).

Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to assassinate Truman, stormed the House of Representatives, and conducted the first airline hijacking in the US. They wound up killing 4 in one bombing in the '70's.

You also had the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, and SLA (of Patty Hearst fame). They committed a number of attacks, but all were pretty small scale.

You also had the flakes - a scattering of individuals that committed terrorist acts. Eric Rudolph bombed abortion clinics and bars frequented by gays. Who knows what Kacynski's cause was - I don't think he had one.

You also have the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, two groups that use some pretty extreme measures in pursuit of their goals even if they don't outright kill people.

The second most significant terrorist attack in US history was Nichols and McVeigh - two Americans that bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City in protest of the government's siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX that resulted in the group burning down their compound with them inside. You had 205 deaths due to terrorist acts between 1980 and 1999 and 168 of those deaths were in the single Oklahoma City bombing.

Then, of course, you had the World Trade Center bombing, the Empire State Building sniper, and 9/11, which were conducted by Middle Eastern foreigners legally in the US.

That doesn't mean terrorists couldn't sneak over the border as easily as Mexican immigrants or that we should ignore border security. It just means that it hasn't been a problem in the past because it's been so easy for them to enter the US legally. Of course, the reason for that is because foreign terrorists entering the country by any means has been a rarity. I believe that natural rarity has been the key component in Bush's success in protecting us from foreign terrorist attacks since 9/11.

That same trend extends world wide. Terrorist acts are a lot more likely to be committed in a terrorist's own country than traveling to a foreign country to kill someone. If you want to cut down on terrorism (you can never eliminate any chance of a terrorist attack), make sure all of your subgroups within the country have an opportunity to achieve some kind of success. That divides the subgroup between those who want to strike out and those that want to make a coordinated effort to increase the number of the subgroup that succeed by plain old hard work.

(And, I have to agree with slugcountry - your argument, "They just want to use America as a means to feed their starving families" was a pretty ineffective argument.)

 

[proton]

Yeah how evil of them.

what I mean by that is that those mexicans should do something about THEIR government, instead of relying on us to help them out. They should be having all their protests demanding that THEIR government do a better job instead of complaining about how we americans arent doing enough to help them.

it is NOT our job to take their of them

 

[animalcroc]

He didn't say "all", he said "most". And the fact of the matter is that a very high fraction of poor people are poor by their own bad choices. The most telling sign is the extremely high corellation between education and income. Most poor people are poor simply because they chose not to finish high school.

Poor people in Nigeria, Brazil, or Afghanistan do not have a choice. Not even in America. It's called life. Trust me, I grew up the poorest of the American poor and I'm now attending UCSD. Being poor, it was harder because life gets in the way. You won't know how something feels unless you walk a mile in that person's shoes.

 

[animalcroc]

Its clear who gains from this, and it isn't the general population.

Illegals effectively destroyed my home; where I grew up in L.A. The last time that I visited it was hardly recognizable.

The rich benefit from illegal immigration and the lower class suffer. ONly 5 percent of illegal immigrants work in agriculture. Illegal immigrants compete with Americans in skilled labor such as masonry, plumbing, pipefitting, contruction, etc.

Yes, I agree LA is a dump. I think illegal immigration has definitely had its impact there.

As long as people are selfish punks and long to gain at the expense of others, then illegal immigration, poverty, environmental degradation, etc will continue to exist.

 

[animalcroc]

I don't mind helping pay for people who really need the help, but I hate thinking about paying for someone's smoking habit or some kids broken spine doing a jackass stunt. Why don't we have universal car insurance too?

Because car insurance is a scam. You pay them monthly but when you get in an accident and try to have insurance cover it, they either make you pay ("deductible" lol) for it or threaten to raise your rates. This makes you sue the person who causes the damage. What's the point of insurance if we don't need it? Answer: dirty politicians and business (which is always dirty)

 

[Skyhunter]

I am paying attention to Senator Ron Paul and I *LOVE* this guy.

I am registered "decline to state", so I can request any primary ballot I want. (only one) I have already decided to vote for him in the California primary. He is the only one so far in the Republican debates who is speaking the truth abut the war.

 

[mheslep]

By the way, what is your source for Ron Paul's denial? Can you provide a link?

Why don't you start by providing a link to your claims; you have posted nothing but self colored text in quotes.

 

[mheslep]

LOL where do you get this crap... illegal labor is the only reason our economy is still running

Good to know, as illegal labor is the 'only reason' I can bail out of my job and ... be a slug!

 

[mheslep]

The U.S. was birthed from immigrants that came from Europe...

^legal^ immigrants.

If you didn't pass medical standards assessed in an inspection lasting a few seconds you were quarantined, or sent home.

 

[ShawnD]

By 'cardio' I meant cardiologist -- is that type of care free or covered by the government?

Crap I missed the boat on this thread by weeks. Yes cardiology is free in Canada.

Because car insurance is a scam. You pay them monthly but when you get in an accident and try to have insurance cover it, they either make you pay ("deductible" lol) for it or threaten to raise your rates. This makes you sue the person who causes the damage. What's the point of insurance if we don't need it? Answer: dirty politicians and business (which is always dirty)

This is why only stupid people buy full insurance. Is it really worth $4500 per year to fully insure a Honda Civic? Hell no. As soon as the loan was paid off, that insurance was gone. Legal minimum is still $1800 for me, but that's liability insurance that specifically covers me against lawsuits. I hit you, I kill your 3 kids and your wife, I laugh at you, you sue me, my insurance pays. Everybody wins except you. Theft was a good idea, though. It's something like $70 per year. Since everybody I know (literally) has had at least 1 car stolen in their lifetime, I can say that theft is more likely to happen than a write off due to my own fault, and yet it costs less than 1/10th as much. Collision insurance is a scam. Plain and simple.Oh and anybody saying illegal immigration is good for the average worker is a total retard whos understanding of economics is lower than that of a 5 year old. Get this, increased supply of labour = lower wages for labour. OMG SUPPLY AND DEMAND EXISTS! Quickly, tell Stockholm! Nobel Prize, here I come!

 

[Evo]

I am registered "decline to state", so I can request any primary ballot I want. (only one) I have already decided to vote for him in the California primary. He is the only one so far in the Republican debates who is speaking the truth abut the war.

You'd vote for a nut simply because he's against the war?

He advocates holistic and homeopthic care instead of real medicine. Sorry, I don't see me wearing copper or magnetic bracelets or wearing crystals to fight off real diseases.

He is against vaccinations and immunizations.

He's against the FDA.

He's against women's health rights and the ability to choose.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

But it's ok to carry guns and kill people, even people with known mental problems can carry guns. Oh and he wants to end our membership in the United Nations.

I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.

H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.

H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.

H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

Ron Paul IS A NUT! Worse than that, he's DANGEROUS.

 

[drankin]

It's ok to kill people, as in murder? It IS ok to carry guns, and guns can kill. I certainly wouldn't vote for someone who believed that "The People" should not have guns or "arms".

 

[Evo]

It's ok to kill people, as in murder? It IS ok to carry guns, and guns can kill. I certainly wouldn't vote for someone who believe that "The People" should not have guns or "arms".

Even mentally ill people? People with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? And he wants automatic assault weapons legalized? And he fears that the UN is trying to take our guns away, so we need to get out of the UN before they take over the country?

This isn't about allowing sane people to carry normal arms...

HE'S NUTS!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You'd vote for a nut simply because he's against the war?

He advocates holistic and homeopthic care instead of real medicine. Sorry, I don't see me wearing copper or magnetic bracelets or wearing crystals to fight off real diseases.

He is a physician...this doesn't sound right. Might it be only holistic medicine? That is popular in the mainstream now.

He is against vaccinations and immunizations.

He's against the FDA.

He's against women's health rights and the ability to choose.

I don't know about the other points, but he seems to be more a Constitutionalist than anti-women's rights.

But it's ok to carry guns and kill people, even people with known mental problems can carry guns.

He said that people with mental problems should carry guns?

Oh and he wants to end our membership in the United Nations.

I hadn't heard about that one. Are you sure about all of this? I have listened to several interviews and it never came up.

Ron Paul IS A NUT! Worse than that, he's DANGEROUS.

Up until now I have found him to be refreshing, but I don't have any real opinions about him yet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

sorry, I had missed a few of your quotes. I doubt that his position is as radical as you make it sound. But this is the first that I have heard about the UN. The Vet gun ownership diddy is likely quite specific. I doubt that he believes that people with serious or dangerous mental problems should be allowed to carry guns.

 

[mheslep]

...Ron Paul IS A NUT! Worse than that, he's DANGEROUS.

Maybe. But I think you miss Rep. Paul's point and his appeal on these issues: it is not so much that our society should, or should not favor position X on a given issue, but rather that US Constitution gives no invitation, nor grants any right to the federal government to engage in most of these areas. The status quo is to hell with the constitution. For instance, most supreme court justices consider the 10th amendment dead, killed off by the manipulation of the commerce clause beyond all recognition. Federal justification: this position X is important, its the 'right' thing do, so the federal government must do it. Now, my take is most people say, sure, 'got to stop the fed' when the fed happens to oppose position X but rant on about the end of civilization when calls go up to remove governmental support of their position Y. So a guy like Paul comes along who says, no, its not in the constitution, therefore the government shall not do X nor shall it do Y, then people are quick to call him a nut. So please no follow up posts saying, "yeah got stop that nut Bush from doing X" and in the same breath "hey Paul does not support Y, he's a nut!"

Its clear from the issues you cite that you are concerned about individual rights. I submit that every time government proceeds extra-constitutionally it weakens the one thing allowing us to govern ourselves, and I do mean the one thing in a nation founded on the rule of law. I'm mostly pro choice. But I believe Roe Wade is fabricated from thin air. Every attorney I've ever discussed it with, regardless of their position believes at least in private that it is just lousy constitutional law. It must be decided at the state level, and when/if it is I'll come out and help you convince our fellow citizens not to criminalize abortion. Finally, if that's not enough for you then we can AMEND the constitution. There's nothing to guarantee its perfect now that we are smugly into the 21st century. Let just not ignore it.

 

[Evo]

sorry, I had missed a few of your quotes. I doubt that his position is as radical as you make it sound. But this is the first that I have heard about the UN. The Vet gun ownership diddy is likely quite specific. I doubt that he believes that people with serious or dangerous mental problems should be allowed to carry guns.

It's all on the whacko's website. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Oddly he has no stance on climate change or the environment listed.

Ok, he doesn't know what they are, read my next post.

 

[Evo]

OMG! Listen to these interviews, he makes absolutely no sense, rambling on about soviets and the government taking over your property...did he ever get close to actually answering the question? No. The question was "what is your take on the environment and more specifically, what would you do to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil. Uhm, Earth to Ron, come in Ron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTr50dREplg&NR=1

Ron Paul Answers Global Warming Question

"The environments are always taken better care of with strict property rights". Communism was the most destructive environmental society we ever had.

Q)Do you think C02 is part of the air quality issue? Ron - I think there's a debate about it, I don't think anybody has the final answer on that, C02 comes from ocean waters and (the rest is rather garbled)



I'm sorry, did someone think this guy had the intelligence to run a country?? I wouldn't trust him running my lawnmower.

I was reading a debate on another forum and the Ron Paul supporters where tasked with explaining what besides his anti war statements they agreed with and it turned out almost 80% had no idea what ANY of his other views were, they just thought that anyone anti-government "was cool". Hoo boy.

 

[Evo]

Yikes! I know Ron Paul is an isolationist, (check out his website) likely to turn the rest of the world against the US that hasn't turned already.

I'm trying to find something that disproves he said this, but can't find anything.

Take the situation in Darfur, over there in Africa. Rather than threatening another invasion of a foreign country resulting in yet more American blood and treasure bleeding into distant sands, I believe the problems of this region can be solved by returning to the sensible vision of our Founders and the U.S. Constitution –- especially in the realm of fiscal and monetary policy. The most important elements in ending the genocide in Darfur are abolishing the Fed and restoring the Gold Standard. It is just plain Texan horse sense.

We hear a lot of talk and hand-wringing about human slavery in this part of the world. But it's time to step up and stand for market principles: a free trade in slaves for the Janjaweed will die out eventually because of natural market forces, not government fiat. Just as the Market should be left to decide the cost of wheat, so should the Market decide best how to rid the world of all this ethnic cleansing. I have no doubt that had WW II gone on much longer, even the statist Nazis would have stopped their Auschwitz business, because the economics just made no sense on the face of it.

Holy Cr@p!

http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=13684

 

[Ivan Seeking]

OMG! Listen to these interviews, he makes absolutely no sense, rambling on about soviets and the government taking over your property...

He only mentions the Soviets in the last ten seconds, and only as an example that government run industry was an environmental disaster, which it was. What he is arguing is that property rights include the right to clean air and water. His point is that the government allows industry to pollute, and this is a violation of everyone elses rights. I agree completely.

did he ever get close to actually answering the question? No. The question was "what is your take on the environment and more specifically, what would you do to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil. Uhm, Earth to Ron, come in Ron.

He did answer the question. He said that a truly free market would drive the price of oil high enough that alternatives would be viable, but the government funds the oil industry with among other things, wars and a free military, which is true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTr50dREplg&NR=1

Ron Paul Answers Global Warming Question

"The environments are always taken better care of with strict property rights". Communism was the most destructive environmental society we ever had.

Yes, if i am entitled to clean air and water as a property owner, then the environment is protected in the process.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yikes! I know Ron Paul is an isolationist, (check out his website) likely to turn the rest of the world against the US that hasn't turned already.

I'm trying to find something that disproves he said this, but can't find anything.

Holy Cr@p!

http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=13684

Why are you using a Russian rag magazine as a source? A search reveals two sources for your quote: Your post and your link.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He is against vaccinations and immunizations.

That's not what he says. He's against forced vaccinations. He believes in freedom of choice, and that IS refreshing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So far, it appears to me that Ron Paul only seems radical because he is loyal to the Constitution, which sounds about right. True patriotism - loyalty to Constitutional principles and law - is a radical idea these days... in spite of the fact that this is what soldiers are sworn to protect with their lives.

No wonder he raised $4 million in one day!

 

[Moridin]

That's not what he says. He's against forced vaccinations. He believes in freedom of choice, and that IS refreshing.

Wonder what that would have gotten the world back in the days of smallpox...

So far, it appears to me that Ron Paul only seems radical because he is loyal to the Constitution, which sounds about right.

He is against state-church separation.

 

[Evo]

Ron Paul is a Christian Fundamentalist that seems to think that the Church should make the rules and run our lives.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html

 

[Evo]

In response to Ivans questions.

Here is my case against Ron Paul: he votes with the GOP 76.5% of the time. Not the nice freedom-loving Republicans of yesteryear, the crazy freedom-hating neo-cons of today.

Source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/

All he is is an over-hyped Republican...

He has voted against a women's right to choose, and he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.

He has voted against gay's having the same rights as others. He even COSPONSORED a bill (Marriage Protection Act) to make it ILLEGAL for the courts to challenge another bill called the Defense of Marriage Act, and has repeatedly voted against gays having the same rights as everyone else.

He has voted against stem cell research.

He has voted against the environment consistently. Opposing things like an increase in fuel economy standards and the Kyoto protocol, and supporting things like protecting oil companies from lawsuits. "The Republicans for Environmental Protection" gave him a 17% on a recent scorecard and "The League of Conservation Voters" gave him a 5%, both indicating extremely anti-environmental votes.

He has voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was one of only 33 who voted against it.

He has voted against the Separation of Church and State consistently. He wants "under God" kept in the Pledge of Allegiance, he wants prayer in school, and the Ten Commandments in the courthouses.

He has voted to get out of the United Nations.

He has voted against the United States doing anything about the genocide in Sudan and wants us to just ignore it.

continued...

http://politics.reddit.com/info/2eg79/comments/c2egbi

 

[turbo]

He has a few Libertarian leanings that can attract single-issue voters, but the fact is that he will kowtow to the neocons and to the religious right to the detriment of the majority of US citizens. This guy is a wild card. If he gains traction as a third party candidate, he will be a spoiler for the GOP, which may be the only circumstance by which Clinton could get win the general election. Her negatives are huge and the GOP is portraying her as THE Dem candidate because they know they can Swift-boat her relentlessly should she get the nomination. They remind me of Brer Rabbit pleading not to be thrown into the briar patch. There is no other Dem candidate that the GOP would rather line up against.

 

[mheslep]

Ron Paul is a Christian Fundamentalist that seems to think that the Church should make the rules and run our lives.

How do you draw that conclusion from those quotes? Fundamentalist? Make the rules?

 

[Evo]

How do you draw that conclusion from those quotes? Fundamentalist? Make the rules?

Read his quotes.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think Ron Paul is a personality vote. I like watching him in debates, and I never suspected he was a Fundamentalist Christian, but I never thought I should vote for him just because I like him.

It seems like a lot of work to research all the candidates. I don't really trust most of the easily available information about candidates (especially information produced after they've announced that they'll be running).

 

[mheslep]

Read his quotes.

Ok:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America,

They were overwhelmingly Christian or Deist, and they wrote the establishment clause in the 1st amendment. Sounds historically correct to me.

with churches serving as vital institutions

Churches were certainly vital in their time.

that would eclipse the state in importance.

A broad assertion, I doubt one could find historical support for this one, certainly not in Jefferson's case. None the less he does not say replace or usurp the government which would contradict the 1st sentence.

Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

Somewhat Jeffersonian, the government as a necessary burden - as little as possible to protect us from ourselves.

This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.

I say that's a fair assessment of the opinion of Marxist organizers circa 1917.

So, nothing in there saying:

the Church should make the rules and run our lives.

Do you retract?

 

[Evo]

Ok:

They were overwhelmingly Christian or Deist, and they wrote the establishment clause in the 1st amendment. Sounds historically correct to me.

Churches were certainly vital in their time.

A broad assertion, I doubt one could find historical support for this one, certainly not in Jefferson's case. None the less he does not say replace or usurp the government which would contradict the 1st sentence.

Somewhat Jeffersonian, the government as a necessary burden - as little as possible to protect us from ourselves.

I say that's a fair assessment of the opinion of Marxist organizers circa 1917.

So, nothing in there saying: Do you retract?

No, when you don't disect what he said and read it together, it means what I said. Tearing it into little pieces out of context is disengenious.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.

Ron Paul wants to put Christianity back into government because he thinks we should revert to when the constitution was written when there was no tolerence for religion other than Christianity in America. He doesn't tout "freedom of religion", he's only supporting Christianity. He is not concerned about other religions, just puting Christian symbols back.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This doesn't sound like a stable person to me.

 

[mheslep]

No, when you don't disect what he said and read it together, it means what I said. Tearing it into little pieces out of context is disengenious.

Really? I'm not sure how I put your posted quote further out of context. Never mind, you're right, I see its a lot more fun to chuck careful scrutiny and go straight to 'it means what I said'. Hey let me try!

Ron Paul has fundamentalist bad breath!

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian ... [skip it - what he said doesn't matter]... faith in God before their faith in the state.

Ron Paul is a Nazi who wants to kill the jews!

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian ... [skip it - what he said doesn't matter]... faith in God before their faith in the state.

Ron Paul, an obvious member of the KKK, wants the Church to torture small animals!

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian ... [skip it - what he said doesn't matter]... faith in God before their faith in the state.

Now, please lock this thread, as there can be no further disagreement. IT MEANS WHAT I SAID.

 

[mheslep]

Ron Paul wants to put Christianity back into government because he thinks we should revert to when the constitution was written when there was no tolerence for religion other than Christianity in America. He doesn't tout "freedom of religion", he's only supporting Christianity.

He is not concerned about other religions, just putting Christian symbols back.

He clearly says "..religiously tolerant America". What shall I take 'tolerant' to mean?

 

[Evo]

Really? I'm not sure how I put your posted quote further out of context. Never mind, you're right, I see its a lot more fun to chuck careful scrutiny and go straight to 'it means what I said'. Hey let me try!

Ron Paul has fundamentalist bad breath!


Ron Paul is a Nazi who wants to kill the jews!


Ron Paul, an obvious member of the KKK, wants the Church to torture small animals!


Now, please lock this thread, as there can be no further disagreement. IT MEANS WHAT I SAID.

Sometimes I don't even have to say anything to prove a point.

 

[Evo]

He clearly says "..religiously tolerant America". What shall I take 'tolerant' to mean?

Where does he say anything about a religion other than Christianity? He doesn't. Tolerant perhaps to different forms of Protestant religions, perhaps a little tolerance for Catholics. Have you read much about the "religious tolerance" of that time period? I have. And that's what he keeps saying we should revert to.

He also doesn't include "secular" (non-religious) people as being due any tolerance or respect for their beliefs.

Again Ron Paul apparently has "no tolerance" for non-Christians.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.