Thread: The Ron Paul Phenomenon: Friday on PBS

Nothing has Changed and...
RON PAUL IN 1988

Glen Beck on Guy Fox
...if you go for the 21 and under crowd looking for votes that’s what your going to get…

See, this is my problem with some Ron Paul supporters. Instead of tackling the critique of their candidate, they establish a straw man that has nothing to do with that critique, then proceed to knock it down.

No one here has implied that he supports amnesty. That's not even what we're debating. Neither have any of the Paul critics here disagreed with his position on birth right citizenship. This is simply a red herring.

As for his statements about white supremacist organizations and their leaders, I'll accept your word-since I did not have the opportunity to listen to the interview myself, and can't watch/listen to it on the computer I currently use. I hope that what you mean by "denounce" is a forceful repudiation of them and all they stand for. If you simply mean he disassociated himself from their noxious opinions, and said he does not agree with them in a pro forma manner-as has been his campaign's response up to this point-then I don't accept that. If, on the other hand, he really doesn't want these parasites on the American body politic to pollute his campaign, then there is one easy step he can take to resolve the problem, i.e. return the cash!!! As simple as A-B-C. Just ask the candidates who were the recipients of cash from tainted donor/fugitive John Hsu.

I completely agree with your last statement, and do believe that having an effective, pro-American, anti-illegal Congress not beholden to foreign powers is just as vital to the future of this country as having a decent, responsible, anti-illegal POTUS. On this matter, we're in concord.

-good times, G.

Also, it should be noted that while Paul opposes Amnesty-capital "a"-he has supported amnesties, much smaller in nature, while in Congress.

Amnesty

OFFICIAL STANCE: No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws. RonPaul2008.com

2002: Voted to reward illegal immigrants with the Section 245(i) amnesty
Rep. Paul voted for H RES 365, a four-month extension of Section 245(i), an amnesty for illegal aliens that rewards illegal immigrants with residency by allowing certain illegal aliens to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to stay without fear of deportation. H RES 365 passed by a vote of 275 to 137.

Some more not so wonderful facts about Paul's immigration record:

Chain Migration

OFFICIAL STANCE: NONE
Each year he has been in Congress, he has declined to cosponsor bills to reduce or end Chain Migration. He has not had a chance to vote on the issue.

Visa Lottery

OFFICIAL STANCE: NONE
2005: Voted for H.R. 4437 to eliminate visa lottery on floor of House
Rep. Paul voted in favor of final passage of H.R. 4437 which included a provision to eliminate the visa lottery that each year awards 55,000 visas on a random basis. H.R. 4437 was passed by the House by a vote of 239 to 182.

Large-scale Importation of Workers

OFFICIAL STANCE: NONE
"Paul has a tough stance on immigration, but that doesn't mean he wants to seal off this country from the outside world. He said he's not opposed to immigration at all, just illegal immigration, and that we should let in more immigrants legally. 'I think we could be much more generous with our immigration,' he told me. But, he added, 'we don't need illegal immigration. We don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.'" December 12, 2007; ABC News

Here's the link:

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... res08.html

Originally Posted by Shapka

See, this is my problem with some Ron Paul supporters. Instead of tackling the critique of their candidate, they establish a straw man that has nothing to do with that critique, then proceed to knock it down.

No one here has implied that he supports amnesty. That's not even what we're debating. Neither have any of the Paul critics here disagreed with his position on birth right citizenship. This is simply a red herring.

As for his statements about white supremacist organizations and their leaders, I'll accept your word-since I did not have the opportunity to listen to the interview myself, and can't watch/listen to it on the computer I currently use. I hope that what you mean by "denounce" is a forceful repudiation of them and all they stand for. If you simply mean he disassociated himself from their noxious opinions, and said he does not agree with them in a pro forma manner-as has been his campaign's response up to this point-then I don't accept that. If, on the other hand, he really doesn't want these parasites on the American body politic to pollute his campaign, then there is one easy step he can take to resolve the problem, i.e. return the cash!!! As simple as A-B-C. Just ask the candidates who were the recipients of cash from tainted donor/fugitive John Hsu.

I completely agree with your last statement, and do believe that having an effective, pro-American, anti-illegal Congress not beholden to foreign powers is just as vital to the future of this country as having a decent, responsible, anti-illegal POTUS. On this matter, we're in concord.

-good times, G.

There are pages and pages of the transcripts from 1986.87,88 90 92 that go in to the establishment of the straw man back then. Clearly these are only geared to high school and college children which were/are his campaign goals.
From what I’m getting about the goods docs campaign here 20 years later, its the same age group with the same anti government kooks tied on for the ride.
Yet not any hard core replicas not as many students. But certainly an accurate reproduction of the object of his affection from the 80s…
"God Bless us, every one"!!!
(Tiny Tim)

His run for POTUS in '88 is an interesting case, because people felt that he would rejuvenate the LP and get more votes than any previous LP presidential nominee, perhaps even snag an EV or two. In fact, he got less than half the number of votes of the LP's most popular standard bearer on a national level, i.e. Ed Clark.

Here's a side-by-side overview of the GOP presidential candidates on this pivotal issue for those who are interested in comparison shopping:

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... _gop1.html

shapka Thanks for the links on Serbia, etc. I don't have a doubt that we meddled around over there. The oldest date, however, was 1998 on the story. Now assuming the problem went back farther, it doesn't compare to the mayhem we have caused in the ME.

We have been installing and propping up murderous despots over there for over 50 years. WE have had 'some organization' over there doing dirty work since the late 50's.

WE have furnished arms to certain factions to fight others. WE have caused untold misery and murder in the ME.

These people are not so dumb they don't realize it is all about the oil - and nothing to do with their having a bettter life.

Give Serbia another 40 -50 years, if we were to behave there as we have in the ME, and I have no doubt they would have some kind of hatred for us - and wish us harm.

2. He has no problem-at least, on a theoretical level-with unlimited levels of LEGAL immigration

Has he said that? Just my 'maybe' interpretation, but could it be when he said we 'could be more generous' - he meant with legal immigration - if we had all the illegals out of here. Could he mean that we could have a larger temporary - not guest worker and no pathway - just temporary worker program?

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

Shouldn't that be the yardstick for any law? Unless it is being intimated that he just makes up his interpretation as he goes - which I doubt.

But shouldn't the constitution be the rule - rather than just something politicians pay homage to - but disregard constantly.

As to hate groups, that is so silly - really, really silly and farfetched. I'd be willing to bet every one running has gotten money from groups I would consider either hate groups or self-serving, not good for America, groups. Wonder if Mr. Huckbee is getting any money from LaRaza?

And the fact that some group that is labelled, and may be, a hate group gave some money $500!!!!!!!!, doesn't bother me nearly as much as the money and arm twisting of big corporations. The corporations are our enemies folks and they buy politicians to do their bidding.

As to voting for amnesty - I don't know about that. I'd have to check that one out.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

2. He has no problem-at least, on a theoretical level-with unlimited levels of LEGAL immigration

Has he said that? Just my 'maybe' interpretation, but could it be when he said we 'could be more generous' - he meant with legal immigration - if we had all the illegals out of here. Could he mean that we could have a larger temporary - not guest worker and no pathway - just temporary worker program?

Well, I don't think we even need any more temporary-worker programs. We already have too many. What Paul is advocating is essentially a resurrection of the Bracero Program, which failed this nation time and time again, and is partially responsible for the mess we are currently in. This is especially significant considering the questions surrounding Paul's views on enforcing employer sanctions, which would be fundamental to any proposed temporary worker program.

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

Shouldn't that be the yardstick for any law? Unless it is being intimated that he just makes up his interpretation as he goes - which I doubt.

Yes, the Constitution should always be the law of the land in this nation. But it is interpreted in many ways by many people including a series of Supreme Court justices who have upheld laws, overturned those same laws etc, throughout this nation's history. Point being: I would like a bit more of a skeptical view of Paul being the end-all-be-all of the Constitution. I for one am skeptical that all of his views are squarely rooted in the Constitution and the ideals of the founders.

Bear Flag,

Have you gotten a reply to your e-mail yet??

I'm not sure we need more temporary worker programs either, but I'm willing to say if we need them and they are, in fact, temporary - no family - no pathway and the employer is responsible, then I'm fine with it.

Let me say, if it is a choice between illegal immigrant and temporary workers - I'll take the temporary workers any day -

As for the bracero program, I'm not sure how it failed other than greedy employers wanted to treat them like animals. The ones who treated them fairly, that I know of, it seemed to work out fine.

I'm not sure how the bracero program got us in the mess we have today. I would say it was the stopping of the program may have been part of the cause. -

The real cause is the greedy corporations, who own the greedy politicians -

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I'm not sure we need more temporary worker programs either, but I'm willing to say if we need them and they are, in fact, temporary - no family - no pathway and the employer is responsible, then I'm fine with it.

nntrixie, I do not know your history that much but these temporary/guest workers programs are the reason Europe is now overwhelmed by immigrants who actively refuse to assimilate and in case of Muslim immigrants they are pursuing a strategy of take-over.

We have a saying concerning "temporary" worker programs: basic unit of temporality is one "forever".