Thread: The Ron Paul Phenomenon: Friday on PBS

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

[

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...

Actually, I get real responses from real people when I e-mail them. I get to talk to real people when I call them. I haven't gotten an answering machine or automated response YET!

Their phone number is on that link, too!

BearFlagRepublic
Paul’s interpretation of the Constitution and Paul’s Philosophy of the Constitution have always been his ways to elude or escape from answering in person That’s why it has been my conclusion to always ask the same question two different ways and then see what answer comes back…

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.

These are the problems I have with Paul's position on immigration issues:

1. He has no problem with guest-worker-both parts of that euphemism are false, BTW-programs, so long as they're uncoupled from amnesty.

2. He has no problem-at least, on a theoretical level-with unlimited levels of LEGAL immigration. While I don't think anyone opposes legal immigration per se-there are some who support a TEMPORARy moratorium on all immigration, simply because of the current uncontrolled, chaotic system we have now, a position I'm sympathetic to-the idea of completely opening our doors to each and every potential immigrant is simply untenable.

3. He views immigration as most libertarians do, i.e. through the prism of economics. While our national security is another component in that vision-in contrast to most libertarians-that's as far as it goes. There is no cultural dimension to his philosophy on this issue.

4. He has implied-repeatedly-that people who support English over other languages are xenophobes, even if he himself supports English on a legislative level. That part really pisses me off!

Originally Posted by Shapka

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.

These are the problems I have with Paul's position on immigration issues:

1. He has no problem with guest-worker-both parts of that euphemism are false, BTW-programs, so long as they're uncoupled from amnesty.

2. He has no problem-at least, on a theoretical level-with unlimited levels of LEGAL immigration. While I don't think anyone opposes legal immigration per se-there are some who support a TEMPORARy moratorium on all immigration, simply because of the current uncontrolled, chaotic system we have now, a position I'm sympathetic to-the idea of completely opening our doors to each and every potential immigrant is simply untenable.

3. He views immigration as most libertarians do, i.e. through the prism of economics. While our national security is another component in that vision-in contrast to most libertarians-that's as far as it goes. There is no cultural dimension to his philosophy on this issue.

4. He has implied-repeatedly-that people who support English over other languages are xenophobes, even if he himself supports English on a legislative level. That part really pisses me off!

If I were an American I would vote for Ron Paul. However, I think Shapka has raised very good questions: maybe Ron Paul's supporters on this forum should pressure him to adopt more sensible policies on immigration.

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

That’s why it has been my conclusion to always ask the same question two different ways and then see what answer comes back…

I'll do that too, Greg.

Originally Posted by Shapka

[4. He has implied-repeatedly-that people who support English over other languages are xenophobes, even if he himself supports English on a legislative level. That part really pisses me off!

Although I did not see the Univision debate, a poster here on ALIPAC reported that he said we are "jealous" for not being a bi-lingual nation.....and again said that illegals are being used as "scape-goats" for problems with the economy.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by Shapka

[4. He has implied-repeatedly-that people who support English over other languages are xenophobes, even if he himself supports English on a legislative level. That part really pisses me off!

Although I did not see the Univision debate, a poster here on ALIPAC reported that he said we are "jealous" for not being a bi-lingual nation.....and again said that illegals are being used as "scape-goats" for problems with the economy.

He said that English should be the official language, i.e. for government documents and procedure, but he didn't stop there.

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archi ... 12/09/7533

Comment by mds —
December 10, 2007 @ 9:33 am

Okay, I got in my bashing of Dr. Paul’s quasi-anti-federalism in the previous comment. Time for some lurve from a liveblog of the GOP Spanish-language debate:

Paul: People who attack bilingualism are jealous. Official government proceedings should be in English, but as far as anything else goes — like education or private use — there’s nothing wrong with bilingualism.

Again, it’s a paraphrase, but… You tell ‘em, Ron!

(Oh, and we should talk to Chávez and Castro. The Cuban GOP wing did not care for that one. Boo hoo.)

http://www.ontheissues.org/2007_Univision_GOP.htm

Ron Paul: Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

...and again said that illegals are being used as "scape-goats" for problems with the economy.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthre ... 2&t=209943

Immigrants are Scapegoats: Ron Paul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When asked about his plans to "secure our borders" during this appearance on The View (6:54 minutes into this video), the first thing Ron Paul says is:

"I think our problem with immigration comes from the fact that we have a weak economy and immigrants are scapegoats".

I wonder what RP supporters think of that.

Later he essentially says that if you do away with the social welfare state and remove the freebies, the immigration problem wouldn't be a problem.

Originally Posted by Shapka

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

...and again said that illegals are being used as "scape-goats" for problems with the economy.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthre ... 2&t=209943

Immigrants are Scapegoats: Ron Paul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When asked about his plans to "secure our borders" during this appearance on The View (6:54 minutes into this video), the first thing Ron Paul says is:

"I think our problem with immigration comes from the fact that we have a weak economy and immigrants are scapegoats".

I wonder what RP supporters think of that.

Well this supporter watched the whole interview and wasn't trying to nit pick little pieces of it to fit a negative agenda.

Later he essentially says that if you do away with the social welfare state and remove the freebies, the immigration problem wouldn't be a problem.[/quot]

So what is your point ? Is this suppose to mean something negative ? He is right,he also wants to end BirthRight Anchor Baby Citizenship which he and a whole lot of Americans think is a GREAT idea because it and Welfare are hugh magnets for coming here.

If you watch the whole View interview you will note he makes a point of saying he does not believe in amnesty.

One more point about that View interview,he had 4 women all talking at once spending most of the time questioning him about abortion and I thought he did a wonderful job of listening to them and answering considering the situation and did not really get to talk about much except abortion.Watch the interview and you will see what I mean.

On the NOW interview he denounced the hate groups who are donating to his campaign and said he wishes they would not do that.He said more about this subject but I cannot essentially remember what he exactly said so I suggest you watch the interview.

Dr. Paul wants to bring all Americans together and is looking for a middle path to do so.He is an honorable man who wants the best for our country and its citizens.

There is NO candidate I will agree with on everything they believe but Integrity is the number one attribute a candidate must have and Dr. Paul has my vote.

Remember the President is not the only one we need to worry about.Congress wealds,as much,if not more power (except Bush) then the President.