Thread: The Ron Paul Phenomenon: Friday on PBS

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Paul In the debate some time back in the summer ,implied amnesty wouldn't be such a bad idea if we could stop attracting illegal aliens with welfare-state programs.

I posted the reply I got from RonPaul2008 regarding illegal immigration yesterday. There is NOWHERE that states or even implies that Ron Paul supports amnesty or anything other than vigorous enforcement of our current immigration and visa laws. In a nutshell he believes in attrition through enforcement, deporting ALL those we catch, rescinding 'birthright citizenship' and eliminating all entitlements.

I think what Greg is refering to is that during the debates (and elsewhere) Paul said that if we had a truly free market economy, "we would realise that we need them (illegals), and they would not be scape-goated." He has also said that he would support a "generous worker program." And if we had a free economy, we could be "much more generous in our immigration policy." These statements, along with Paul's voting record, and lack of mention of employer sanctions in his 6 point plan and statements on immigration, have led some people -- myself included -- to believe that Paul does not reject amnesty outright. That he opposes the magnet of welfare, but not the job magnet, which is the magnet with the strongest pull. This would also fit neatly with his libertarian background and philosophy. No welfare, match willing employees with willing employers. As long as they do not get welfare, I don't think Paul sees IAs as a huge problem, "we need them" after all......

I think what Greg is refering to is that during the debates (and elsewhere) Paul said that if we had a truly free market economy, "we would realise that we need them (illegals), and they would not be scape-goated." He has also said that he would support a "generous worker program." And if we had a free economy, we could be "much more generous in our immigration policy."

I've highlighted what are two very important words that take the conversation from practical all the way to whimsical. "IF" The fact is that we don't have a 'truly free market economy', and until the day comes that we do I don't think Dr. Paul will be supporting any worker programs. One thing I believe the man has is integrity. He will follow the law, the Constitution and the will of the electorate.

Employer sanctions are part of current law and I would expect they will be used, just like deportation.

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.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

So you don't agree that our consistent subterfuge in ME politics over the last 50 years has any correlation to the anger the ME has for us?

What exactly is your plan to dampen the "anger" of the Arab street?

These are people whose religion calls for the execution of anyone who does not adhere to their beliefs-or compensation to Moslem rulers simply to practice a persecuted, diminished aspect of your faith, i.e. dhimmitude. I suggest you read Bat Ye'or or Ibn Warraq to learn more about this subject.

And I've got news for the armchair Middle Eastern historians on this board-whose knowledge of contemporary Middle East history seems to be limited to what can be cribbed from the RP website, or observed during a media appearance by Juan Cole.

The Pahlavi dynasty had been in existence for three decades prior to any Anglo-American involvement in Iran. Mohammed Mossadegh was on the verge of being overthrown-and was a universal laughingstock, both domestically and abroad-by the time the EVIL AMERICANS did anything in Iran, which wasn't much, believe me. Do you want to know what would have happened to Iran? I suggest you take a look at republican Spain prior to the Civil war for a clue.

I know it's feels cathartic to displace blame, and ignore the threat that's right in front of your face-and is scary as Hell-but sometimes it's better to buck up and deal with reality as it is, not as you want it to be.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

Why do the people in the ME hate us?

Remember the same people that are giving us this illegal invasion and the destructive trade deals, NAFTA, CAFTA, NAU, superhighway, etc., etc,

Are the same ones that are carrying out our foreign policy.

They simply cannot be so wrong - so wrong - on everything else - but right on foreign policy.

You can't do so many destructive things to bring this nation to its knees - then fight a war on the other side of the world - and pretend you are protecting America.

It just doesn't wash.

Okay, saying that a foreign policy decision is misguided-or counterproductive-is one thing, but claiming that it generates waves of terrorism and destruction directed at the country making said decision, is an assertion that needs to be backed up by evidence.

Let me perform a little thought experiment here.

What country has been the victim of more U.S. foreign policy errors, and subjected to more pain because its people were demonized and sidelined by U.S. policymakers, than any other?

I'll give you a hint.

It's located in the Balkans, and most of the people who live there aren't Moslems.

Funny thing though, you never hear about any Serbians walking into U.S. embassies with bomb vests, or hurling petrol bombs against the walls of U.S. embassies, and you sure don't seem to hear much about Serbo-Americans plotting to murder in cold blood American servicemen, as was the case with their Albanian-Muslim counterparts in NJ. and Pa., i.e. the Fort Dix Six.

Tell me, who does this square with your whole "they hate us because we're interfering in their countries" philosophy?

Even presuming that our impact on Arab-Moslem countries is to their detriment, which is a dubious proposition in itself considering the amount of times we bend over backwards to strengthen Moslem hegemony, why don't the same rules apply to Serbia?

If the only reason someone attacks the U.S. is because they hate U.S. foreign policy, why don't the people who are slighted by U.S. foreign policy decisions more than any other take out their revenge?

I wonder what the decisive factor in their decision-making process is.

Hmm...

http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigrat ... i_arab.htm

After that lets play a little who am I

Ok ready, set, go...

1]
In 1988 I only got 0.5 % of the Popular Vote
2]
I screamed on national TV "I get high "
3]
My running mate was from alaski and got 0 votes
4]
I resigned from the Republican Party in protest over the "War on Drugs" policy, which I made clear in a letter to then-"Drug Czar" William Bennett.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_XT7zDuuZg

a llittle music why the flowers try and fall from the plant and while I reload...
Keep in mind i use alot of music to send messages

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Paul In the debate some time back in the summer ,implied amnesty wouldn't be such a bad idea if we could stop attracting illegal aliens with welfare-state programs.

I posted the reply I got from RonPaul2008 regarding illegal immigration yesterday. There is NOWHERE that states or even implies that Ron Paul supports amnesty or anything other than vigorous enforcement of our current immigration and visa laws. In a nutshell he believes in attrition through enforcement, deporting ALL those we catch, rescinding 'birthright citizenship' and eliminating all entitlements.

I think what Greg is refering to is that during the debates (and elsewhere) Paul said that if we had a truly free market economy, "we would realise that we need them (illegals), and they would not be scape-goated." He has also said that he would support a "generous worker program." And if we had a free economy, we could be "much more generous in our immigration policy." These statements, along with Paul's voting record, and lack of mention of employer sanctions in his 6 point plan and statements on immigration, have led some people -- myself included -- to believe that Paul does not reject amnesty outright. That he opposes the magnet of welfare, but not the job magnet, which is the magnet with the strongest pull. This would also fit neatly with his libertarian background and philosophy. No welfare, match willing employees with willing employers. As long as they do not get welfare, I don't think Paul sees IAs as a huge problem, "we need them" after all......

Pauls exact words to Howard Fineman

Fineman
It's long been law that if you are born here, you are a citizen, even if your parents are here illegally. You want to change that. Why?
Paul
I'd argue that the conditions are different, that we have to decrease the incentives to come. If they come, and are put into the welfare system, and [their kids] are born here—and I've delivered some of these babies—[the kids] are immediately put on benefits. They can get housing allowances, food allowances, and Americans resent it because our economy is so weak. Whether it's amnesty or birthright citizenship or special benefits, I want to change that. I want a healthy economy. Then we will be able to have a much more generous immigration policy, which would fit my personal philosophy and our Constitution.


Ron Paul did and does practice civil disobediences... and any under ground econmy he has proved it many times
The Constitution of the United States is not something to play games with...
So when says maybe and might he doesnt realy know...

You wax so eloquently.... Then your TinFoil Hat gets in the way.....
With constant interference of the political process by pushing and pushing RuPaul , who doesn't have a chance by the way, you are leaving the rest of America with a choice of Rudi or Hillary/YoMoma....
Please take the Hat off and understand what the TinFoil Hat Brigade and RuPaul is doing to America....

People are going to wake up in the last Second and vote for Rudi.... They have seen what they did in the last election.... Then we get 8 more years of Weak Borders and Spending etc....

You play into the hand of the opposition reliably each election cycle...
I am going to have stop posting with people that wear TinFoil Hats..
I'ts like trying to rehabilitate a pedophile..Just not going to work.....

cigar
That tin foil Hot thing I must admit id never heard till you said it .
so I ask around and this is what i found out

Some song while you read

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts -- You may need to read the following sentence twice: Aluminum foil hats will block the signals emitted by the radio tags that will replace bar-code labels on consumer goods.

That is, of course, if you place your tin-foil hat between the radio tag and the device trying to read its signal.

Makers of RFID (or radio frequency identification) tags, along with the retailers and suppliers who plan to use them, are saying the technology they spent millions of dollars developing is too weak to threaten consumer privacy. Metals, plastics and liquids, they say, all block radio signals before they reach RFID reader devices.

"Any conductive material can shield the radio signals," said Matt Reynolds, a principal at ThingMagic, which develops RFID systems. "There are all kinds of ways to render the tags inoperable."

That means Coca-Cola, which eventually wants to put an RFID tag on every can of soda it sells, will have a hard time getting around the metals, plastics and liquids that block the radio signals from the tags.

Reynolds was speaking this weekend at MIT's RFID privacy workshop, where privacy advocates squared off with companies planning to replace bar-code labels on their goods with stamp-sized RFID tags. He was one of several speakers downplaying the threat to consumer privacy posed by the tags, which assign a unique identifying code to each item.

Engineers at the meeting also presented proposals for devices that could deny RFID readers access to a tag's information, or disable the readers by overwhelming them with useless data. They also demonstrated a device that could be used to disable, or "kill," RFID tags at store exits.

Many companies, including Wal-Mart, Metro, Tesco, Procter and Gamble and Gillette, have already started tagging items in stores in the United States and Europe. And the companies making RFID tags still plan to help their customers tag every shampoo bottle, soda can and milk bottle that rolls off the assembly line.

No company, however, has deployed devices that will kill the tags at checkout.

Wal-Mart has been especially cagey about its in-store tests. It has shunned publicity and notified shoppers only vaguely that they are being tracked. Wal-Mart, P&G and Gillette have also been discovered testing the tags on unwitting consumers outside Tulsa, Oklahoma, and in Brockton, Massachusetts.

Civil libertarians have their backs up over the prospect of retailers using RFID tags to track people in their stores, and -- by combining the radio tag data with credit and customer-loyalty-card information -- creating detailed profiles of their customers.

Government snoops could also, conceivably, use RFID-based customer profiles in an investigation, and track the radio tags in public places to keep tabs on certain individuals.

Privacy activists at the workshop also said the companies promoting the new standard for using RFID tags, called the Electronic Product Code, are exaggerating RFID's limitations in order to assuage consumers' privacy concerns.


Now Back to the regularly scheduled Brain washing

Now Back to the regularly scheduled Brain washing

Homeless people would make a hat out of Tin Foil so the Government would not be able to send radio signals and control them...It was big in the 70s and early 80's.. Weird as hell...