Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Ron Paul ...The main thing with me is he is a big believer in the constitution( which is the reason our country is so great) most politicians would like to burn it. He also would listen to the voice of the people and go with the majority because he believes this is what our founding fathers believed was best for America....and I agree!

The founders feared Democracy and the majority rule which is why they established a Constitutional Republic. Just look at the buying of votes with the welfare state and entitlements. Then there is that women voting thing....

Regardless, Paul is soft on immigration
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-95435-.html
and just plain nutty when it comes to foreign policy.

Paul doesn't have a modicum of understanding about what Islam is all about nor any idea that Allah instructs his followers to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to convert the whole world to Islam.

He wouldn't have a clue on what the Islamic doctrine of abrogation is all about.

Ron Paul would pull our military from all foreign lands, cut off all military funding, and actually believes that if we simply IGNORE Islamic countries, that Muslims will suddenly stop following the teachings of Mohammed, that they'l throw their Qur'ans away, and that they will then gather around with the infidels (us!) to sing Kumbaya.

Paul believes it's "none of our business" whether or not countries like Iran and Syria develop nuclear weapons. Paul believes Islamic "radicals" hate the United States because we're in Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that the Qur'an specifically teaches Muslims to murder all infidels (non-believers) and wage war upon them wherever they live. Paul doesn't even seem know the history of the Muslim attacks against the USA BEFORE we were in Iraq, let alone all the Muslim attacks against people whose countries have nothing to do with Iraq.

Under Paul we would have the national guard patrolling the borders while simultaneously smoking dope. At least they wouldn't have to go very far to buy it.

At least under Paul we woudn't be so hated in foreign countries and blamed as conquerors, tortures, exploitation etc...
If you never read foreign press, I assure you this is what a lot of them talk about us.

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Martha, did you see Paul on Meet the press this morning?

Ron Paul is for stopping birthright citizenship,

That was a great part of the interview. Tim Russert made the implication that Ron Paul was a hypocrit since he considers himself a "strict constructionist" and still promotes amending the constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship. Ron Paul smacked him upside the head with his answer.

From the transcript: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/pr ... mode/1098/)

MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.

REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?

MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?

REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

Originally Posted by PFWAG

Regardless, Paul is soft on immigration
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-95435-.html
and just plain nutty when it comes to foreign policy.

Paul doesn't have a modicum of understanding about what Islam is all about nor any idea that Allah instructs his followers to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to convert the whole world to Islam.

He wouldn't have a clue on what the Islamic doctrine of abrogation is all about.

Do you have any basis for these assertions or are you just spewing your own opinion?

Ron Paul would pull our military from all foreign lands, cut off all military funding, and actually believes that if we simply IGNORE Islamic countries, that Muslims will suddenly stop following the teachings of Mohammed, that they'l throw their Qur'ans away, and that they will then gather around with the infidels (us!) to sing Kumbaya.

Bring our military home, yes, which would allow us to cut funding WITHOUT lowering our ability to defend ourselves. The rest of this is just RANT.

Paul believes it's "none of our business" whether or not countries like Iran and Syria develop nuclear weapons.

What should we do to stop them, BOMB them?? Are you another fan of that 'preemptive strike' doctrine?

Paul believes Islamic "radicals" hate the United States because we're in Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that the Qur'an specifically teaches Muslims to murder all infidels (non-believers) and wage war upon them wherever they live. Paul doesn't even seem know the history of the Muslim attacks against the USA BEFORE we were in Iraq, let alone all the Muslim attacks against people whose countries have nothing to do with Iraq.

They do, and I doubt he ignores anything. The rest of this is MORE RANT.

Under Paul we would have the national guard patrolling the borders while simultaneously smoking dope. At least they wouldn't have to go very far to buy it.

And this is just downright ludicrous...

Originally Posted by PFWAG

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Ron Paul ...The main thing with me is he is a big believer in the constitution( which is the reason our country is so great) most politicians would like to burn it. He also would listen to the voice of the people and go with the majority because he believes this is what our founding fathers believed was best for America....and I agree!

The founders feared Democracy and the majority rule which is why they established a Constitutional Republic. Just look at the buying of votes with the welfare state and entitlements. Then there is that women voting thing....

Regardless, Paul is soft on immigration
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-95435-.html
and just plain nutty when it comes to foreign policy.

Paul doesn't have a modicum of understanding about what Islam is all about nor any idea that Allah instructs his followers to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to convert the whole world to Islam.

He wouldn't have a clue on what the Islamic doctrine of abrogation is all about.

Ron Paul would pull our military from all foreign lands, cut off all military funding, and actually believes that if we simply IGNORE Islamic countries, that Muslims will suddenly stop following the teachings of Mohammed, that they'l throw their Qur'ans away, and that they will then gather around with the infidels (us!) to sing Kumbaya.

Paul believes it's "none of our business" whether or not countries like Iran and Syria develop nuclear weapons. Paul believes Islamic "radicals" hate the United States because we're in Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that the Qur'an specifically teaches Muslims to murder all infidels (non-believers) and wage war upon them wherever they live. Paul doesn't even seem know the history of the Muslim attacks against the USA BEFORE we were in Iraq, let alone all the Muslim attacks against people whose countries have nothing to do with Iraq.

Under Paul we would have the national guard patrolling the borders while simultaneously smoking dope. At least they wouldn't have to go very far to buy it.

After 911 we should simply not allow muslims to immigrate here. How close is the nearest Muslim Nation? Indonesia, Philippines, Morroco! How can they possibly affect us if we do not allow them to immigrate here. The countries who border the Muslim Nations need to make a stand and we can help through the private sector. The way we are defending the World no other Nation is responsible for their own defense, more taxation and debt from federal taxation to take care of the World.

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Ideally contracting the wall to the Minutemen paid for by tolls from the trade transits would be best. The litigation involved may halt opperations or maintenance. Would be nice if only the different Minutemen groups would be able to bid!

Bingo.

And there in lies the rub. "Privitization" implies that the highest bidder gets the contract. The Minutemen would not be given any special consideration under lassez fair economics -- they don't have the capital. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the Minutemen would prefer a permanent vacation and for the federal government to actually do their Constitutional duty.

"Government" is not the problem. The problem is that we presently do not have representative government.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Ideally contracting the wall to the Minutemen paid for by tolls from the trade transits would be best. The litigation involved may halt opperations or maintenance. Would be nice if only the different Minutemen groups would be able to bid!

Bingo.

And there in lies the rub. "Privitization" implies that the highest bidder gets the contract. The Minutemen would not be given any special consideration under lassez fair economics -- they don't have the capital. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the Minutemen would prefer a permanent vacation and for the federal government to actually do their constitutional duty.

"Government" is not the problem. The problem is that we presently do not have representative government.

Regardless of who takes the contract or even if our government did "actually" built the wall I do not think most of the Minutemen groups would trust them, for good reason. They are dedicated for this country and they know if they take a permanent vacation we will be permanently globalized. Who is more Patriotic people signing up to go to Iraq or people volunteering with or as Minutemen?

Originally Posted by PFWAG

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Ron Paul ...The main thing with me is he is a big believer in the constitution( which is the reason our country is so great) most politicians would like to burn it. He also would listen to the voice of the people and go with the majority because he believes this is what our founding fathers believed was best for America....and I agree!

The founders feared Democracy and the majority rule which is why they established a Constitutional Republic. Just look at the buying of votes with the welfare state and entitlements. Then there is that women voting thing....

Regardless, Paul is soft on immigration
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-95435-.html
and just plain nutty when it comes to foreign policy.

Paul doesn't have a modicum of understanding about what Islam is all about nor any idea that Allah instructs his followers to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to convert the whole world to Islam.

He wouldn't have a clue on what the Islamic doctrine of abrogation is all about.

Ron Paul would pull our military from all foreign lands, cut off all military funding, and actually believes that if we simply IGNORE Islamic countries, that Muslims will suddenly stop following the teachings of Mohammed, that they'l throw their Qur'ans away, and that they will then gather around with the infidels (us!) to sing Kumbaya.

Paul believes it's "none of our business" whether or not countries like Iran and Syria develop nuclear weapons. Paul believes Islamic "radicals" hate the United States because we're in Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that the Qur'an specifically teaches Muslims to murder all infidels (non-believers) and wage war upon them wherever they live. Paul doesn't even seem know the history of the Muslim attacks against the USA BEFORE we were in Iraq, let alone all the Muslim attacks against people whose countries have nothing to do with Iraq.

Under Paul we would have the national guard patrolling the borders while simultaneously smoking dope. At least they wouldn't have to go very far to buy it.

MY God, you are so ill informed "PFWAG" You know absolutely nothing about Ron Paul that is so easy to see by your posts.

Are you one of those people who believe in "the constitution is nothing but a gawd damn piece of paper" people, Bushes words, not mine.

Yes give us another Bush this man has not done enough harm to our country....did you vote for him? I didn't either time!!

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Who is more Patriotic people signing up to go to Iraq or people volunteering with or as Minutemen?

Tough choice, actually.

I consider the men and women signing up to go to Iraq to be very patriotic and dependable people....its those damn Haliburton and Blackwater folks I despise. Kinda like the Hessians that King George tried to pay off to fight George Washington and our freedom fighters at the founding of our republic.

The Minutemen are great, but it seems clear that they can not do it alone. If it were for profit, perhaps more would join, but that brings us back to the Hessians and Haliburton.

IMO the bottum line is that the military is never better used, and more motivated than defending ones own territory. If we had representative gov't, the deed would be DONE.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

IMO the bottum line is that the military is never better used, and more motivated than defending ones own territory. If we had representative gov't, the deed would be DONE.

The problem is we can not trust the CFR people to finish the deed they do not care about borders and would rather have the NAU and the amero.

The Executive and Legislative Branches make promises and pass bills yet nothing gets done. If the deed was privatized with a toll we know the funds would be there to for the task. The Minutemen would keep us informed with the progress.
When we had an incident here near Oakland, when a truck with fuel burned up and destroyed an overpass, they had a contractor fix the problem with encentives. Why do you think they chose to complete the work with a private contractor? Because if the State (caltrans) were given the job the businesses in San Francisco would lose too much money, they take to long. The contractor finished ahead of time and made (I think) millions in incentives!

When tasks are privatized there done right and efficiently!