Ron Paul on CNN at 7EST tonite (5/16)

[Steven Bickford]

I am amused by all the libertarians and anarchists fawning over Ron Paul given his stance on immigration:

"Paul's desire to secure U.S. borders remains a key topic in his 2008 presidential campaign. He opposes the North American Union proposition and its proposed integration of Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada. Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes illegal immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

Aren't open borders a HUGE part of the libertarian and anarchist philosophies? So how are you guys able to look past such a major flaw (from a libertarian perspective) in his platform? You guys write off all democrats as evil because of their stances on taxes no matter how much they agree with you on other issues such as civil liberties and immigration. Yet Paul is a total immigration hawk, and he is not subject to the same disdain. Suspicious indeed.

I think it has something to do with the R next to his name. My theory is that a lot of libertarians are really closet Republicans, but are afraid to admit it. Don't worry gentlemen, we will welcome you with open arms once you overcome your identity crisis and admit it.

[gonebroke2]

[ QUOTE ]

Why hit Canada? Why hit Mexico? Why hit anywhere when you can attack the beacon of Freedom in the world, the country that represents democracy and equality, the United States of America. It's a much more powerful message to attack the symbol of freedom in the world.

(That's just a POSSIBLE reason, could also have to do with foreign policy)

[/ QUOTE ]

No wonder America is hated by the world. The citizens of America are all a bunch of idiots. You think they attacked America because it is a symbol of freedom? The arabs got tired of being pushed around by a bully and they retaliated. How hard is that to understand? Quit [censored] with the arabs, quit stealing their natural resources, quit putting military bases on their land, quit putting in puppet dictators, and stay the hell out of the middle east and 9/11 would have never happened.

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]
I am amused by all the libertarians and anarchists fawning over Ron Paul given his stance on immigration:

Aren't open borders a HUGE part of the libertarian and anarchist philosophies? So how are you guys able to look past such a major flaw (from a libertarian perspective) in his platform?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe because illegal immigration is a huge problem, and it makes very good sense to try and rectify the situation?

Stop worrying so much about people's political affiliation. Start using your brain and try to pick the best candidate. Just pretend that everybody is an independent, and go from there.

[Steven Bickford]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why hit Canada? Why hit Mexico? Why hit anywhere when you can attack the beacon of Freedom in the world, the country that represents democracy and equality, the United States of America. It's a much more powerful message to attack the symbol of freedom in the world.

(That's just a POSSIBLE reason, could also have to do with foreign policy)

[/ QUOTE ]

No wonder America is hated by the world. The citizens of America are all a bunch of idiots. You think they attacked America because it is a symbol of freedom? The arabs got tired of being pushed around by a bully and they retaliated. How hard is that to understand? Quit [censored] with the arabs, quit stealing their natural resources, quit putting military bases on their land, quit putting in puppet dictators, and stay the hell out of the middle east and 9/11 would have never happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unbelievable. What natural resources are we stealing from the Arabs?

And by the way, Saudia Arabia ASKED for US troops during the first Gulf War and turned down Osama's offer to raise an Arab army to stop Saddam Hussein. It's not our fault that Osama threw a hissy fit over the mere presence of American troops in an Arab country, even though we were clearly doing that country a favor and protecting an innocent nation from invasion.

Stop blaming America first and rationalizing the actions of Islamic terrorists. They'd find a reason to hate us no matter what we did.

[iggymcfly]

Hmmm. The government taking up to 50% of my yearly income or a 10-year wait time on citizenship for a bunch of people I've never met. How is it possible that one of these issues could be a deal-breaker for me, while the other one doesn't bother me much? That is indeed quite a mystery. Honestly, I'm pretty neutral on immigration. I'm not sure I'd even consider it a Top-10 issue.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
I am amused by all the libertarians and anarchists fawning over Ron Paul given his stance on immigration:

[/ QUOTE ]

He is wrong on immigration. I have no problem admitting that, and I said so to my friends when discussing Paul. Dead wrong on one issue. He's right on just about everything else though. This makes him a lot closer to my views than any other D or R I ever read about, Goldwater included.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does any thinking person not realize that 9/11 is a direct result of US foreign policy? Is everyone (excluding R. Paul) in the GOP an idiot?

Why do they think that there have been no big terrorist campaigns against Canada, Mexico, <insert_non_US_country_here>?

[/ QUOTE ]


Why hit Canada? Why hit Mexico? Why hit anywhere when you can attack the beacon of Freedom in the world, the country that represents democracy and equality, the United States of America. It's a much more powerful message to attack the symbol of freedom in the world.

(That's just a POSSIBLE reason, could also have to do with foreign policy)

[/ QUOTE ]

maxtower - Everyone with any sense on the matter knows that our foreign policy inspires the hatred many muslims harbor toward us, even the ex-mayor of NYC. "They hate us for our freedom" slogans are just slogans used to sell our informal colonialization of the Middle East and to prevent Americans from having to ask deep questions about their country, their moral clarity and righteousness.

Ron Paul is not the only person to catch flack for stating the obvious, and he won't be the last.

Saying that, US Policy is not the only thing muslims hate, and the USA is not the only place attached by terrorists. Britian and Spain were attacked as well, presumably because their adherence to US Policy in the Middle East.

It's not that simple because terrorism is a hydra, and once it gets going, it grows in so many directions that you can't point it toward one country's policy. The truth of the matter is that at this point, there are people out there who want to commit acts of terror precisely because they do hate us because of our freedom. But the hard questions are how did it start and how can we make it end?

This is the question no one in power wants to be asked because the answer isn't hard at all. It began because we took over these countries (albiet the Europeans started it with actual official coloniztion), because we support Israel and because we are place despots and tyrants in power to steal their resources. All of this led these people to take a look at us, see our scantily clad women driving cars, and get pissed about Danish caricatures.

I don't know if we should or should not support Israel, but I think at the very least, we should accept that Israel has done some very [censored]'ed up stuff to the Palestinians. I don't know if we are justified in support regimes who will sell us oil for less than it worth, but at the very least we should accept that by doing so we are helping to perpetuate the cycle of poverty for these people. I don't know if we should let the Middle East divide back into the tribal regions in which it once existed, but at the very least we should be accept that if we going to suppress these people's drive for independence, they are going to see us as an "aggressor" and attack us when and how they can.

These aren't easy issues, because who wants to tell Israel their on their own? Who wants to pay $4.50 a gallon for their Ford Excursion? Who wants to sit on the sidelines as Kurds, Persians and Arabs go to war and genocides ensue?

No one talks about that, because you can't get elected by calling a spade a spade. Ron Paul has done precisely that, and while its news America needs to hear over and over, its news they don't want to hear, and that will cost him the election.

You can look at the hard truth, or you can listen to the mayor and decide that we can have our cake and eat it to. I suspect America by and large prefers the latter, which is sad because it is unsustainable.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I am amused by all the libertarians and anarchists fawning over Ron Paul given his stance on immigration:

"Paul's desire to secure U.S. borders remains a key topic in his 2008 presidential campaign. He opposes the North American Union proposition and its proposed integration of Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada. Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes illegal immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

Aren't open borders a HUGE part of the libertarian and anarchist philosophies? So how are you guys able to look past such a major flaw (from a libertarian perspective) in his platform?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I'm able to choose a lesser evil if it actually is significantly lesser?

[Steven Bickford]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. The government taking up to 50% of my yearly income or a 10-year wait time on citizenship for a bunch of people I've never met. How is it possible that one of these issues could be a deal-breaker for me, while the other one doesn't bother me much? That is indeed quite a mystery. Honestly, I'm pretty neutral on immigration. I'm not sure I'd even consider it a Top-10 issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for further strengthening my point. If you were actually a libertarian or anarchist, open borders would be an extremely important issue for you. According to libertarian philosophy, one of the primary causes of wealth disparity and poverty is closed borders and the inability of people to move to where their labor is most needed.

Again, welcome to the Republican party.

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]


maxtower - Everyone with any sense on the matter knows that our foreign policy inspires the hatred many muslims harbor toward us, even the ex-mayor of NYC. "They hate us for our freedom" slogans are just slogans used to sell our informal colonialization of the Middle East and to prevent Americans from having to ask deep questions about their country, their moral clarity and righteousness.

Ron Paul is not the only person to catch flack for stating the obvious, and he won't be the last.

Saying that, US Policy is not the only thing muslims hate, and the USA is not the only place attached by terrorists. Britian and Spain were attacked as well, presumably because their adherence to US Policy in the Middle East.

It's not that simple because terrorism is a hydra, and once it gets going, it grows in so many directions that you can't point it toward one country's policy. The truth of the matter is that at this point, there are people out there who want to commit acts of terror precisely because they do hate us because of our freedom. But the hard questions are how did it start and how can we make it end?

This is the question no one in power wants to be asked because the answer isn't hard at all. It began because we took over these countries (albiet the Europeans started it with actual official coloniztion), because we support Israel and because we are place despots and tyrants in power to steal their resources. All of this led these people to take a look at us, see our scantily clad women driving cars, and get pissed about Danish caricatures.

I don't know if we should or should not support Israel, but I think at the very least, we should accept that Israel has done some very [censored]'ed up stuff to the Palestinians. I don't know if we are justified in support regimes who will sell us oil for less than it worth, but at the very least we should accept that by doing so we are helping to perpetuate the cycle of poverty for these people. I don't know if we should let the Middle East divide back into the tribal regions in which it once existed, but at the very least we should be accept that if we going to suppress these people's drive for independence, they are going to see us as an "aggressor" and attack us when and how they can.

These aren't easy issues, because who wants to tell Israel their on their own? Who wants to pay $4.50 a gallon for their Ford Excursion? Who wants to sit on the sidelines as Kurds, Persians and Arabs go to war and genocides ensue?

No one talks about that, because you can't get elected by calling a spade a spade. Ron Paul has done precisely that, and while its news America needs to hear over and over, its news they don't want to hear, and that will cost him the election.

You can look at the hard truth, or you can listen to the mayor and decide that we can have our cake and eat it to. I suspect America by and large prefers the latter, which is sad because it is unsustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]


Good stuff.