Thread: The Ron Paul Phenomenon: Friday on PBS

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Bear Flag,

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

Not yet, unfortunately I'll keep you posted.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

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 -

The Bracero Program was a failure because, as commissions for both Truman and Kennedy had concluded, they drove down wages for working Americans, and they fueled illegal immigration.

Cheap labor is addictive. Give the corpos an inch, and they take a mile. Many illegals came and went during that period setting the standard and the tradition of cheap Mexican labor in the feilds of California (legal and illegal) resulting in the 3 million given amnesty in 1986. That amnesty bill was supposed to stop the problem, but of course it did not. 20 million more came, and now they want a guest worker/temporary worker plan for them. Give them one, and we will see the same -- more illegal immigration and wage depression. This would especially be true if employer sanctions go uninforced, as they traditionally have been.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

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.

Despot(s), plural?

Leaving aside the question of whether Shah Reza Pahlavi-who was overthrown largely due to his progressive attitudes, not because of the brutality of the Savak, or even the stagnancy of the bazaari economic elite-was a "despot," what makes you think that the retrograde, undemocratic, statist mentality of almost every Middle Eastern regime is our responsibility, and not that of the people who have shaped these regimes over the course of centuries?

Was the U.S. government the one who overthrew King Farouk and installed Gamel Abdel-Nasser in his place?

Did The United States cement the military-religious alliance between Ibn al-Wahhab and the clan of al-Saud, even though it was a colony of Great Britain at the time?

Did the U.S. government install the Assad dynasty, which has supported terrorism against American civilians and servicemen in the Middle East for decades? If so, what exactly the was point of that intervention?

Did the United States install terrorist madman Moumar Gadaffy as the head of state of Libya?

This is the problem I have with the Paulistas. They are so eager to blame the United States for malfeasance that they entertain the completely surreal notion that Islam-a religion that is based wholly upon conquest and hatred and which is compulsory for anyone living in an Islamic country-is less of a motivating factor than whatever American foreign policy is implemented in relation to that Islamic state at any given historical epoch.

Tell me, if you suggest that merely trading with countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia is tantamount to propping up their dictatorial regimes, then why don't you support cutting off trade completely? And if you do support that step, how does that square with your support for Ron Paul, who endorses trade agreements with every single government, no matter how anti-American or tyrannical, in the name of a Utopian "free trade," which is just as unrealistic in its ambitions as the neoconservative philosophy he routinely derides.

WE have furnished arms to certain factions to fight others.

So you oppose trading with every nation in the Middle East?

Good, then when are you going to cease supporting Ron Paul, who takes the exact opposite position?

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.

What do you mean?

Giving Serbia billions of dollars in foreign aid and assistance, supporting its most expansionist, and unrealistic dreams, merely in order to placate the dominant religion of that country?

Because that's what we're doing with the Islamic states of the Middle East, especially in relation to the Palestinians. We are helping them to cannibalize our only true ally in that region, Israel, in order to ingratiate ourselves with people who steep their people in the most virulent hatred of our values.

You don't seem to grasp the fundamental distinction between an Eastern Orthodox Christian living in Belgrade, who might despise our foreign policy-with some justification-but who does not belong to a religion bent on our eradication.

We will not see Serbian terrorists targeting America-except perhaps in the fantasies of leftist, anti-American Hollywood screenwriters-because Serbian (Christians) are not terrorists, and the terror that is inflicted upon us is driven by the Islamic religion, not by a distorted perception of American foreign policy overseas, as you and Ron Paul would have us believe.

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?

Yes.

How exactly is that a good record?

Guest-worker programs are a double oxymoron.

The fact that Paul doesn't recognize that should tell you all you need to know about his fundamentally flawed immigration views. Ask Mark Krikorian what he thinks of so-called "guest-worker" programs and you'll get an earful.

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?

It is not the fact that he received money from people who are white supremacists that bothers me. It is almost impossible to vet the identity of each donor to a campaign that raises significant funds. My problem is that when it was pointed out that Don Black, David Duke's protege, sent him a campaign check, not only did he not return it immediately-and denounce its giver-HE KEPT THE CHECK! That says everything.