Thread: The Ron Paul Phenomenon: Friday on PBS

This is still one of my favorites

[quote]In 1992, he wrote it.
In 1996, he defended it.
In 2001, as he ran for office, it was a ghost writer in his staff.
In 2007, it was someone “outside of the campaignâ€

shapka

You will have to explain how our meddling in Serbia - as being worse than our meddling in the ME.

I will admit I don't know about that.

This is a discussion that really needs to happen - it really does. Whether you like Ron Paul or not - he is a factor in the elections.

The discussion, however, needs to be based on ideas, even our perceptions of him - not tin foil hat statements, sound bites, insults and 'he just can't win' statements.

Again, why do the people in the ME hate us so much?

And again, how are you going to feel if Mexico continues its interference in our electoral and judicial process? How are you going to feel if you learn that Mexico has armed a certain factions in this country to begin a war here?

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

No surprise in any of this, but it's useful to underscore the fact that Paul has no notion of American culture or nationhood beyond the bare legal fact of sovereignty. He has no problem with America turning into a Muslim or Mexican or Chinese country, or all three. He supports the principle of both indiscriminate immigration and unlimited immigration (i.e., outside-the-quota extended family preferences) incarnated in the 1965 Immigration Reform Act.

This is what I have been thinking for some time. I'm not really hearing any cultural conservatism. It seems it is all about government authority over economics, Paul's interpretation of the Constitution (and I think that should be up to more debate), and in the end, an actual increase in the # of immigrants in this nation.

Just how many more immigrants do we need? How many can this country contain? Do we actually need more people in this nation? Does Paul have a litmus test for immigrants outside of economics? Will he legalize the Mexican burning the American flag and giving us the finger, so long as he is a hard worker, and does not receive a welfare check?

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

No surprise in any of this, but it's useful to underscore the fact that Paul has no notion of American culture or nationhood beyond the bare legal fact of sovereignty. He has no problem with America turning into a Muslim or Mexican or Chinese country, or all three. He supports the principle of both indiscriminate immigration and unlimited immigration (i.e., outside-the-quota extended family preferences) incarnated in the 1965 Immigration Reform Act.

This is what I have been thinking for some time. I'm not really hearing any cultural conservatism. It seems it is all about government authority over economics, Paul's interpretation of the Constitution (and I think that should be up to more debate), and in the end, an actual increase in the # of immigrants in this nation.

Just how many more immigrants do we need? How many can this country contain? Do we actually need more people in this nation? Does Paul have a litmus test for immigrants outside of economics? Will he legalize the Mexican burning the American flag and giving us the finger, so long as he is a hard worker, and does not receive a welfare check?

Why dont you ask him?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/form

They've been good enough to answer every question I've asked them, and promptly, too!

Please feel free to post their reply

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[Why dont you ask him?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/form

They've been good enough to answer every question I've asked them, and promptly, too!

Please feel free to post their reply

Thanx Pinestraw. I did just that. I copy and pasted my last post in the e-mail.

I will let you guys know what I hear back from the Paul campaign in this thread.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[Why dont you ask him?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/form

They've been good enough to answer every question I've asked them, and promptly, too!

Please feel free to post their reply

Thanx Pinestraw. I did just that. I copy and pasted my last post in the e-mail.

I will let you guys know what I hear back from the Paul campaign in this thread.

COOL!!!

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

So Shapka, is it your position that acts of espionage and subterfuge in the Middle East, or anywhere for that matter, that depose democratically elected governments and replace them with autocrats and dictators a GOOD thing?

What makes you think autocracy and democracy are mutually exclusive?

Hugo Chavez was "democratically" elected-albeit with lots of connivance from his own version of the brownshirts, now labeled "Bolivarian Revolution Brigades"-even though he launched a coup against the previously democratic-and internationally recognized government in Venezuela.

If you're asking me whether I think people or political parties who don't respect basic civilizational values or essential democratic principles, e.g. freedom of speech, freedom to worship as you see fit, freedom of the press, should be allowed to particpate in free elections, then my answer is "no, they shouldn't." I don't think that the Islamic Salvation Front or HAMAS, or any other group whose charter calls for the destruction of non-Moslems and subjugation of everyone else, and has acted on those principles, to devastating results, should be given the power to run the lives of others.

If you're asking me whether I believe that the U.S. initial support for the restoration of the peacock throne in Persia was a good idea, then retrospectively I'd probably say "no." However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have supported a government that, while not directly elected, still respected women's rights, did not foment terrorism against the United States and its allies, and did not launch wars in order to attain hegemony over the entire Middle East. You might think that Ayatollah Khoemeini and the rise of the Shia' crescent over the Middle East was preferable to woman freely walking around Tehran without Mutaween-like enforcers beating them and shoving them in Evin Prison, but I do not.

Didn't our founders advise us to stay out of other people's internal affairs?

Yes, and our founders-specifically, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison-also fought courageously to destroy the stranglehold Barbary pirates-motivated by not only plunder but dreams of a revived Caliphate-exercised over shipping in the Medditerranean and Atlantic Ocean. A part of our early history that you've conveniently overlooked.

Do you believe that a policy of preemptory first strike is a valid, Constitutional or even moral policy?

Yes, yes, and hell yes!

If a nation or terrorist entity based in a nation intends to kill American civilians or members of the Armed Forces, then I think it's perfectly legitimate to kill or disable the entities responsible for such plotting.

The question of whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a valid exercise is another matter altogether, but it has no bearing on whether we are morally justified in destroying people who are plotting to kill us, whether they be in Yemen or Pakistan or The Sudan.

Should we be building 14 military bases and an embassy bigger than the Vatican in Iraq? If so, why is this in our national interest?

No, it would be optimal that we don't have any military bases in Iraq, and I don't see why the embasssy there should be any larger than necessary, although I also don't see why we shouldn't have an embassy since we do have diplomatic relations with that counry now.

The reason we have military bases in places like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait isn't because we forced our will upon the GCC and forced them to accept a U.S. troop presence. It's because their governments begged us to offer them protection from regional powerhouses who have threatened or continue to threaten their territorial integrity. Now, whether you think these nations as currently constructed are legitimate entities is another question entirely. My point is that we're there because we were asked, not because we forced ourselves onto them. When the Saudis asked us to pack up and leave, we did. Simple as that.

How far does your position extend? Should we close down the air base at Incirlik because Turkish public opinion is anti-American, even though the democratically chosen Turkish government has given its consent to that air base, and we are both partners to the treaty governing NATO?

Was closing down Subic Bay in the Philippines-even though there continues to be a massive terrorist present in the S. Philippines, and threats from the Communist NPA, Islamist MILF and Abu Sayaf, and Al Qaeda-affiliated JI-a wise move?

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[Why dont you ask him?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/form

They've been good enough to answer every question I've asked them, and promptly, too!

Please feel free to post their reply

Thanx Pinestraw. I did just that. I copy and pasted my last post in the e-mail.

I will let you guys know what I hear back from the Paul campaign in this thread.

What I find to be a problem with emails to a candidate around this time, is the response will be manufactured and/or from someone who is paid to respond by the auto email systems put up by any candidates office …in other words you type immigration you get this answer you type in the word Iran you get another type of answer if you type in the words IRS and you wont see one answer they all run and hide... I’m Joking, I’d love to see what Paul will say, not his mangers or Cam-pawn people, but his Answer…
He campaign track record shows his people can’t be trusted...
Ill fall out of the chair if you get an answer from Ron Paul himself...

Originally Posted by nntrixie

shapka

You will have to explain how our meddling in Serbia - as being worse than our meddling in the ME.

I will admit I don't know about that.

http://www.neurope.eu/articles/41885.php

http://mondediplo.com/2000/02/05samary

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/62991.stm

http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/?cat=1

This is a discussion that really needs to happen - it really does. Whether you like Ron Paul or not - he is a factor in the elections.

The discussion, however, needs to be based on ideas, even our perceptions of him - not tin foil hat statements, sound bites, insults and 'he just can't win' statements.

I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.