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

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is bookmarked for the next time an ACist says "the lesser of two evils is still evil!" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So welcome to our world (our world = voters who admit that candidates take stupid, mindless positions, but that it can be reasonable to vote for them anyway for practical reasons).

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is bookmarked for the next time an ACist says "the lesser of two evils is still evil!" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So welcome to our world (our world = voters who admit that candidates take stupid, mindless positions, but that it can be reasonable to vote for them anyway for practical reasons).

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about voting for him? I just want him all over the TV saying things that people on the TV never say.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is bookmarked for the next time an ACist says "the lesser of two evils is still evil!" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So welcome to our world (our world = voters who admit that candidates take stupid, mindless positions, but that it can be reasonable to vote for them anyway for practical reasons).

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about voting for him? I just want him all over the TV saying things that people on the TV never say.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seemed to me like at least brainwalter and AlexM intend on voting for him.

[Borodog]

Conceded. They probably will. It's a futile waste of time. Ron Paul has as much chance of winning the Presidency as my dog Dodger does.

[goodsamaritan]

[ 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? 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bickford is a jackass, but I think he's actually on to something in his own convoluted way. .

I've always sensed an undercurrent of Republicanesque racism and gun-toting hickishness among many libertarians. And I've always been curious as to why some ACers are the first to defend the Confederacy every time the topic of the Civil War is discussed. Yeah the Union was bad too and allowed slavery in some parts, but what about the fact that the Confederacy's primary reason for seceding was so that THEY COULD CONTINUE OWNING HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY.

I think there's two types of libertarians/ACers in this forum, and in general:
1. Fake libertarians: ie "Get the government off MY back" (and who gives a [censored] about the government [censored] over gays and foreigners.)
2. Real libertarians: "Get the government off EVERYONE's back."

While virtually all libertarians claim to be in group 2, I think when push comes to shove, a lot are actually in Group 1, which bears close resemblance of the libertarian sect of the Republican party.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is bookmarked for the next time an ACist says "the lesser of two evils is still evil!" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So welcome to our world (our world = voters who admit that candidates take stupid, mindless positions, but that it can be reasonable to vote for them anyway for practical reasons).

[/ QUOTE ]

Bookmark it all you want, Paul is not the lesser of two evils, he is right on the vast majority of issues, all the evil politicians I know of are wrong on the vast majority. Supporting one of THOSE anyway is picking the lesser of two evils.

Also IF I vote for Paul, it will not be for a practical reason (I rationally understand it is a waste of my time) but a quite irrational one.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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? 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bickford is a jackass, but I think he's actually on to something.

I've always sensed an undercurrent of Republicanesque racism and gun-toting hickishness among some of the ACers in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your prejudices and projections are not our problems.

[ QUOTE ]
And I've always been curious as to why some ACers are the first to defend the Confederacy every time the topic of the Civil War is discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no? We don't? We attack Lincoln. Attacking Lincoln != "defending the Confederacy". Do you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah the Union was bad too and allowed slavery in some parts, but what about the fact that the Confederacy's primary reason for seceding was so that THEY COULD CONTINUE OWNING HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no? It wasn't? It was over tarrif policy. Have you READ Lincoln's First Inaugural Address? It basically says, "Keep paying the tarrifs and nobody gets hurt." Seceding after Lincoln's election so that THEY COULD CONTINUE OWNING HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY would be pretty [censored] silly, seeing as Lincoln explicitly said that that he had no aims to PREVENT THEM FROM CONTINUING TO OWN HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY in his inaugural address.

[ QUOTE ]
I think there's two types of libertarians/ACers in this forum, and in general:
1. Fake libertarians: ie "Get the government off MY back" (and who gives a [censored] about the government [censored] over gays and foreigners.)
2. Real libertarians: "Get the government off EVERYONE's back."

While virtually all libertarians claim to be in group 2, I think when push comes to shove, a lot are actually in Group 1, which bears close resemblance of the libertarian sect of the Republican party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, your prejudices and projections are not our problems.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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? 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bickford is a jackass, but I think he's actually on to something in his own convoluted way. .

I've always sensed an undercurrent of Republicanesque racism and gun-toting hickishness among many libertarians. And I've always been curious as to why some ACers are the first to defend the Confederacy every time the topic of the Civil War is discussed. Yeah the Union was bad too and allowed slavery in some parts, but what about the fact that the Confederacy's primary reason for seceding was so that THEY COULD CONTINUE OWNING HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY.

I think there's two types of libertarians/ACers in this forum, and in general:
1. Fake libertarians: ie "Get the government off MY back" (and who gives a [censored] about the government [censored] over gays and foreigners.)
2. Real libertarians: "Get the government off EVERYONE's back."

While virtually all libertarians claim to be in group 2, I think when push comes to shove, a lot are actually in Group 1, which bears close resemblance of the libertarian sect of the Republican party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Riddick and his various post-Riddick-ban accounts was ostensibly some kind of libertarian or anarchist, and he seemed like he was some kind of bigot. But others like neitzereznor and Shakezula seem like what I would call downright "progressive" regarding their views on race, if I recall their posts correctly.

I think racists hicks and anarchists just happen to share a strong strain of anti-federalism, so they often sound alike. Racist hicks dislike federalism because the federal government has more or less dismantled local government sponsored racism in the South; anarchists are anti-federalist because they don't like big government. If anything, I'd claim bigots have co-opted more benign sounding anti-federalist positions as a 'legitimate' cover for their racism, because their real agendas are rather untenable in contemporary America. "Uncle Sam can't tell me what to do!" is a bit more acceptable than "my state should be able to disallow black men from marrying white women".

[iggymcfly]

I support gay rights and I'm not remotely racist. Really though, what rights do foreigners have under the US government? If they're not part of the United States, and are not citizens, then they are granted no rights by the US government.

I do believe that the immigration process should be reformed to make legal citizenship much easier to obtain, but I'm not really convinced that a completely open border is the solution. Someone explain to me why this is such a huge contradiction?

[Taciturn]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, oil.
[ 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? 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Secure borders are consistent with libertarianism. The party's obligation is to the citizens of its own country - They want the borders secured, not closed... arguing that by doing so they would be protecting Americans. Immigration would still be permitted... The liberty of American citizens wouldn't be reduced. This all very well may be impractical and irrational, but it's not inconsistent with libertarianism. The party platform, on the Libertarian party's official website:

[ QUOTE ]
The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.

Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas."

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml