Lou Dobbs: John Stossel A "Self-Important Ass" (AUDIO)

[bobbyw24]

On his radio show Thursday, Dobbs slammed Fox Business' latest high-profile hire, John Stossel, calling the former ABC News correspondent a "self-important ass" who has "his own brand of myopic idiocy."

Stossel had taken Dobbs to task for what he called "rants about immigrants wrecking America."

"Immigrants wrecking America -- I've never said anything close to that," Dobbs said. "As a matter of fact, I embrace immigrants to this country, I welcome them, I want more -- and as a matter of public policy, we need them. In no way am I restrictionist, and to hear this ass continue his act over at Fox News. I just can't wait until he starts blowing bubbles in the air -- that's about all he's equipped to do."

The New York Times reported earlier this month that Fox Business was eyeing Dobbs for a potential role at the startup business network.

LISTEN:


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/lou-dobbs-john-stossel-a_n_331722.html


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/lou-dobbs-john-stossel-a_n_331722.html

[JoshLowry]

Kludge will not be amused.

[Pennsylvania]

"Immigrants wrecking America -- I've never said anything close to that," Dobbs said.

WRONG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs#Illegal_immigration_and_border_security)

[Flash]

WRONG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs#Illegal_immigration_and_border_security)

There's a difference between legal & illegal immigration. Calling illegals 'immigrants' is not going to attract mainstream Republicans to our cause. Personally I want less legal immigrants, period. As I believe out-of-control multiculturalism is dangerous for our nation. But that is my opinion.

Stossel, like most Libertarians, is not defending his point well. He should say why legal & illegal immigration is beneficial to our welfare state. If he can't come up with an answer then he should drop the issue altogether.

[American Idol]

I like Stossel sometimes, but Dobbs is right...

[Pennsylvania]

There's a difference between legal & illegal immigration. Calling illegals 'immigrants' is not going to attract mainstream Republicans to our cause. Personally I want less legal immigrants, period. As I believe out-of-control multiculturalism is dangerous for our nation. But that is my opinion.

I was referring to the comments about leprosy.

[Flash]

I was referring to the comments about leprosy.

What does that have to do with immigrants though? He said 'Hispancis.'

[Pennsylvania]

What does that have to do with immigrants though? He said 'Hispancis.'

Yes, hispanics bringing leprosy to the US, according to the wiki page. I imagine it would be difficult to bring something to the US if you were already there.

[Flash]

Yes, hispanics bringing leprosy to the US, according to the wiki page. I imagine it would be difficult to bring something to the US if you were already there.

Kind of a stretch. Shutting down the border to stop spreading diseases is a rational idea. It is disease control 101. That doesn't mean Lou has a vendetta against immigrants at all.

[Pennsylvania]

Kind of a stretch. Shutting down the border to stop spreading diseases is a rational idea. It is disease control 101. That doesn't mean Lou has a vendetta against immigrants at all.

I could agree if he had the facts to back up his allegation. He didn't. So why did he make it at all? Not only was it demonstrably false, it was completely off target.

[angelatc]

WRONG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Dobbs#Illegal_immigration_and_border_security)

Wikipedia is not a valid source of information.

[fisharmor]

Wikipedia is not a valid source of information.

Actually, those numbers inside the brackets next to Wikipedia's sentences, called superscripts, are links to the end notes to the article.

And those end notes point to non-Wikipedia sources.

Wikipedia is, despite popular opinion, a more valid source of information than a lot of other "valid" sources of information. In a lot of cases, the facts Wikipedia is presenting are backed up with multiple links to external sites.

If you had ever entered gratuitous assertions into Wikipedia without supplying external sources, you'd know that the site administrators actually contact you to let you know your information is suspect until it can be verified with a source. Many articles go to the trouble of stating that within the article.

There are also firestorms of activity behind articles where two opposing viewpoints clash until a value-neutral wording can be reached. If that wording can't be reached, the page will spawn articles devoted to the argument itself.

It is an unadulterated example of how the market solves problems without government intervention. In this case the problem is gathering and storing information.

The free market works. Open source principles work. The information is not correct 100% of the time, but no information is. Wikipedia is, in many cases, as good as it gets.

Your statement may have been true five years ago. It is not true today.

[torchbearer]

Armadillos spreads leprosy. Not a reason to pass a federal law against them.

[0zzy]

I can't stand these dumbasses on that site. gawd.

"LAWL! THEY'RE EATING THEIR OWN! HAHAH! OUR TEAM OWNZ! LAWLZ"

Really? Really? We put everything into different teams? Stossel and Dobbs are twin brothers? Is this a joke?

And Stossel is a fake reporter for the Republican party? He used to be cool until he started making stories about real issues? Aw geez, really? I thought Democrats would give Stossel a bit more love. But no. They use their self-important ass glasses to see that only Obama is god like and anyone else is inferior. Anyone who disagrees are stupid asses. Right. I get it. You're right We're wrong. Your team wins our team sucks. I get it, your smart we're dumb. It all makes sense now.

[Flash]

I can't stand these dumbasses on that site. gawd.

"LAWL! THEY'RE EATING THEIR OWN! HAHAH! OUR TEAM OWNZ! LAWLZ"

Really? Really? We put everything into different teams? Stossel and Dobbs are twin brothers? Is this a joke?

And Stossel is a fake reporter for the Republican party? He used to be cool until he started making stories about real issues? Aw geez, really? I thought Democrats would give Stossel a bit more love. But no. They use their self-important ass glasses to see that only Obama is god like and anyone else is inferior. Anyone who disagrees are stupid asses. Right. I get it. You're right We're wrong. Your team wins our team sucks. I get it, your smart we're dumb. It all makes sense now.

These are typical posts on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Reddit, & Digg. I never heard a liberal make a coherent arguement against Lou Dobbs. He allows liberals on his show and presents an intelligent argument against their views. You would think he would be respected more than O'reilly or Glenn Beck but nope.

[Deborah K]

I like Stossel sometimes, but Dobbs is right...

^ This. Dobbs is married to a Latina and her parents live with them. Dobbs' problem is with illegal immigration NOT legal immigration. Stossel needs to look before he leaps on this one.

[Ian A.]

Dobbs gets more irate the more ground he looses to Stossel.


STOSSEL TO DOBBS ON OUTSOURCING JOBS:

"Forgive me for being the gardener at your skunk party, but we're creating more jobs than we're losing."


YouTube - ABC News : 20/20 : Myth : Outsourcing Bad for America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IRrfcvVCg)

[Bruno]

Is this not the pot calling the kettle black?

[NYgs23]

Dobbs is a militant protectionist, nearly an autarkist. I'm sure he'd support a "war on illegals," despite the fact that it would be certain to go as well as the war on drugs. If you folks are worried about immigrants burdening the welfare system, you should focus on getting rid of the welfare system, not the immigrants.

[Flash]

Dobbs is a militant protectionist, nearly an autarkist. I'm sure he'd support a "war on illegals," despite the fact that it would be certain to go as well as the war on drugs. If you folks are worried about immigrants burdening the welfare system, you should focus on getting rid of the welfare system, not the immigrants.

Exactly and that's the traditional Libertarian position. But Stossel should be asked, "how would illegals benefit America when we live in a welfare state?" Supporting illegal immigration while we still have the welfare state is extremely dangerous.

[Deborah K]

Dobbs is a militant protectionist, nearly an autarkist. I'm sure he'd support a "war on illegals," despite the fact that it would be certain to go as well as the war on drugs. If you folks are worried about immigrants burdening the welfare system, you should focus on getting rid of the welfare system, not the immigrants.

ILLEGAL immigrants!!!! :rolleyes: If you think he'd support a war on illegals then you don't watch or listen to him, you are spouting an uninformed opinion.

[NYgs23]

I can't stand these dumbasses on that site. gawd.

"LAWL! THEY'RE EATING THEIR OWN! HAHAH! OUR TEAM OWNZ! LAWLZ"

Really? Really? We put everything into different teams? Stossel and Dobbs are twin brothers? Is this a joke?

And Stossel is a fake reporter for the Republican party? He used to be cool until he started making stories about real issues? Aw geez, really? I thought Democrats would give Stossel a bit more love. But no. They use their self-important ass glasses to see that only Obama is god like and anyone else is inferior. Anyone who disagrees are stupid asses. Right. I get it. You're right We're wrong. Your team wins our team sucks. I get it, your smart we're dumb. It all makes sense now.

Those morons are partisan whores who see the world through a prism of "Right-Wing Team" vs. "Left-Wing Team." The goal is to control the state apparatus so that the other team doesn't get a hold of it, and they'd vote against God for the devil, if the devil was on their team.

The fact that they can't tell Stossel the libertarian apart from Dobbs the nationalist-populist-protectionist just shows how blinkered they'd are.

[Danke]

Kludge will not be amused.

Yes, bury this thread before he finds out, Mr. Admin. Is Kludge ever amused?

[NYgs23]

Exactly and that's the traditional Libertarian position. But Stossel should be asked, "how would illegals benefit America when we live in a welfare state?" Supporting illegal immigration while we still have the welfare state is extremely dangerous.

I understand the argument, but I fear giving the state even more power to control society more than I fear that. Remember you'd be giving this power to Obama and Pelosi, not to Ron Paul and Hans Hoppe. They're going to control immigration is whatever way most benefits them, that is to say, the state. I'm more comfortable leaving them without yet another tool of control and concentrating on scrapping the welfare state itself and privatizing the socialized "public goods" that everyone fights over.

[NYgs23]

ILLEGAL immigrants!!!! :rolleyes: If you think he'd support a war on illegals then you don't watch or listen to him, you are spouting an uninformed opinion.

Marijuana is an illegal drug. I don't care about those semantics. So what is Dobbs's position on immigration, legal or otherwise? You're right, I don't pay much attention to him; this clip alone pegs him as utterly ignorant in economics, as far as I'm concerned:

YouTube - Lou Dobbs Calls Economists "Jackasses" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoDb3D7B2Zo&feature=player_embedded)

[Deborah K]

Marijuana is an illegal drug. I don't care about those semantics. So what is Dobbs's position on immigration, legal or otherwise? You're right, I don't pay much attention to him; this clip alone pegs him as utterly ignorant in economics, as far as I'm concerned:

YouTube - Lou Dobbs Calls Economists "Jackasses" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoDb3D7B2Zo&feature=player_embedded)

So, because he is ignorant on economics that means he is ignorant in all other matters? His main issues have always been the war on the middle class and illegal immigration, not economics.

[angelatc]

The free market works. Open source principles work. The information is not correct 100% of the time, but no information is. Wikipedia is, in many cases, as good as it gets.

Your statement may have been true five years ago. It is not true today.

Tell it to CNN and MSNBC. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/10/beware-of-using-wikipedia-cnn-and-msnbc.html

The liberal bias of Wikipedia is screamingly obvious. Happily, I've seen several college professors absolutely forbid their students from using it.

[NYgs23]

His main issues have always been the war on the middle class and illegal immigration, not economics.

What's the war on the middle class? Inflation or something else? And what's his position on illegal immigration? I don't illegal immigration doesn't justify a growth in state power, welfare state or no. Trying to solve a problem caused by aggression with more aggression just doesn't work.

[Danke]

Tell it to CNN and MSNBC. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/10/beware-of-using-wikipedia-cnn-and-msnbc.html

The liberal bias of Wikipedia is screamingly obvious. Happily, I've seen several college professors absolutely forbid their students from using it.

Wikipedia is a joke. A really good article by Dave Champion about the Tax Honesty movement was deleted.

[angelatc]

Marijuana is an illegal drug. I don't care about those semantics. So what is Dobbs's position on immigration, legal or otherwise?

YouTube - Lou Dobbs Calls Economists "Jackasses" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDb3D7B2Zo&feature=player_embedded)

That's pretty funny. Dobbs' relentless activism is probably the single biggest reason that amnesty didn't pass in the Bush years.

[angelatc]

Wikipedia is a joke. A really good article by Dave Champion about the Tax Honesty movement was deleted.

That's because liberals like to pay taxes. Well, except for the liberals that earn enough to actually pay taxes.

[Deborah K]

What's the war on the middle class? Inflation or something else? And what's his position on illegal immigration? I don't illegal immigration doesn't justify a growth in state power, welfare state or no. Trying to solve a problem caused by aggression with more aggression just doesn't work.

Here's his book:
http://www.amazon.com/reader/0670037923?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib%5Fdp%5Fpt#reader_0670037923

He's against amnesty, anchor babies, and wants immigrants to come in through the front door.

[WClint]

I wish there were more people like Lou Dobbs than we could really get things done.

I call it national libertarians. We would bring home the troops (from all over the world) and use them to deport the illegals. We would shut down welfare, section8 and other crapola, we would let the banks fail. End affirmative action, end all immigration, we would buy American and put high tariffs on the Chinese and others.

[NYgs23]

He's against amnesty, anchor babies, and wants immigrants to come in through the front door.

Well, I just don't worry about that stuff. I used to, but now I'm more concerned about how Obama & Co would enforce those doors, etc. I say, let them come, let them get jobs and be productive individuals, and shut down socialism and welfarism for all. We don't put up trade barriers between states because people might come from one state might burden the welfare programs of another state.

I've changed my position on this. I found this essay by Walter Block and Anthony Gregory very convincing: "On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe (http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:OoW-Eds0vE0J:mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf+walter+block+gregory+immigration&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShtCkrW7rn77HzqjVb6oJCCI6ho1a61qzU3kgp-66Ammd7uH0er_HsPI-lxNTmtrqLAOb_OHJaKrQRoahczW5GqxrLU_IUwcLZXSbtEZOLb T6pZ1rafoWyhQIAJ-xULuwn97-gS&sig=AFQjCNFCqXfLfeWlE01tRvi0C4JfX9RRxg)."


I call it national libertarians. We would bring home the troops (from all over the world) and use them to deport the illegals....end all immigration, we would buy American and put high tariffs on the Chinese and others.

See, this is just craziness, if it's serious. This isn't libertarianism; it's Fortress America. It's impoverishing. It's aggressive. I don't want to live in a society where I can't hire or trade with anybody because they happen to come from a geographic area outside some arbitrary, government-drawn line.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron Paul on immigration...and these interviews were before the economic crash...our economy is in far worse shape now.


Please start by summarizing your position on immigration.

Well, I start off with saying that it’s a big problem. I don’t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders. This mess has come about for various reasons. One, the laws aren’t enforced. Another, the welfare state. We have a need for workers in this country because our welfare system literally encourages people not to work. Therefore, a lot of jobs go begging. This is an incentive for immigrants to come in and take those jobs.

It is compounded because of federal mandates on the states to provide free medical care—that’s literally bankrupting the hospitals in Texas—and free education.

So my main point is to get rid of incentives that cause people to break the law—entitlements as well as the promise of amnesty, citizenship.

I also want to revisit the whole idea of birthright citizenship. I don’t think many countries have that. I don’t think it was the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment. I personally think it could be fixed by legislation. But some people argue otherwise, so I’ve covered myself by introducing a constitutional amendment.

How would legislation work?

It would define citizenship. Individuals that just stepped over the border illegally would not be technically “under the jurisdiction of the United States”. [i.e. not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the words of the Fourteenth Amendment] That’s illegal entry, so they don’t deserve this privilege.

What is your view on legal immigration?

I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.

I’m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.

But in the meantime, we want to stop the illegals. And that’s why I don’t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we’ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq.

Is the economy healthy enough right now?

No. I don’t think so. I think the economy is going downhill. People are feeling pinched—in the middle, much more pinched than the government is willing to admit. Their standard of living is going down. I saw a clip on TV the other day about somebody who was about to lose their house, they couldn’t pay their mortgage .There’re millions of people involved, people are very uncertain about this housing market. That can’t be separated from concern about illegals.

http://vdare.com/pb/070912_paul.htm#view




http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

Ron Paul on Immigration
Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President


If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem
Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.

A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007

Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship
Q: You say you’re a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be US citizens.

A: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What’s the contradiction there?

Q: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?

A: Well, that’s constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn’t in the original Constitution. And there’s confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it’s still confusing because individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they’re under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it’s awfully, awfully confusing, and, matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007

Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior
Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language?

A: Well, it’s practical because we can all understand each other. I sometimes think that those who attack bilingualism sometimes are jealous, & we feel inferior, because we’re not capable. But we should have one language. But we, as federal officials, as a congressman or a president, we only have authority over the federal government. So I think all federal things should be in English. But when it comes to bilingualism in schools or the states, under our Constitution, it really is permissible. And the states can decide that. But under the conditions that we have today, I think it is good and proper to have one language, which would be English, for all legal matters at the national level. But this doesn’t preclude bilingualism in private use or in education or in local government.
Source: 2007 Republican primary debate on Univision Dec 9, 2007

No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals
Q: Is it even practical to try to send 12 million illegal immigrants all home?

A: I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it’s pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn’t be rewarded. And that would be the case.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state
I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn’t be rewarded. That means you don’t give them citizenship. You can’t solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn’t be a threat to us.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important
Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?

PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more
If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty. But we force our states and our local communities to pay for the health care and pay for the education. Why wouldn’t they bring their families? And because of our economic conditions, we do need workers. But if we had a truly free market economy, the illegal immigrants would not be the scapegoat. We would probably need them and they would be acceptable.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president
Q: Should we change our Constitution to allow men like Mel Martinez, born in Cuba, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, to stand here some night as candidates for president?

PAUL: I’m a no, because I am a strong supporter of the original intent

GIULIANI: When he called me up to endorse him, he got me on the phone, he said, “Will you endorse me?”, and I was too afraid to say no. I would say yes.

TANCREDO: Intimidating as he might be, I’m saying no.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

End all incentives and amnesty for illegal immigrants
We haven’t talked about the economics of illegal immigration. You can’t solve this problem as long as you have a runaway welfare state & excessive spending & the wiping out of the middle class through inflation, because that’s what directs the hostility, is people are hurting. When we have all these mandates on hospitals and on schools. There’s an incentive for a lot of our people not to work, because they can get welfare. Then there’s a lot of incentive because they know they’re going to get amnesty. We gave it to the illegals in the ‘80s. Then, we put mandates on the states to compel them to have medical care. And you say, well, that’s compassionate. What happens if the hospital closes and then the people here in this country don’t get medical care? So you can’t divorce it from the economics. You’ve got to get rid of the incentives. No amnesty. No forced benefits. It just won’t work if you try to see this in a vacuum. You have to deal with it as a whole, as an economic issue as well.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Republican primary debate Jan 5, 2006

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.
Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including:

1. systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and
2. physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry

Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband.

Proponents support voting YES because:

It is obvious there is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal immigration. The most basic obligation of any government is to secure the Nation's borders. One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the Senate and the House is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait until comprehensive legislation is enacted, we should move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. The legislation today provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing, and for the rest of the border provides a virtual fence, via integrated surveillance technology.

Opponents support voting NO because:

Just to build the fence is going to cost us at least $7 billion. Where is the money coming from to pay for it? How much is it going to cost to maintain this 700-mile fence? Who is going to do it? This bill contains no funding.

This bill also ignores real enforcement measures, like hiring more Border Patrol personnel, and instead builds a Berlin Wall on our southern border. So long as employers need workers in this country, and while our immigration systems impede rather than facilitate timely access of willing workers to those opportunities, undocumented immigration will never be controlled.

Walls, barriers, and military patrols will only force those immigrants to utilize ever more dangerous routes and increase the number of people who die in search of an opportunity to feed and clothe their families.
Reference: Secure Fence Act; Bill H R 6061 ; vote number 2006-446 on Sep 14, 2006

Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project.
Voting YES on this amendment supports the Minuteman Project, a group of volunteers who have taken on surveillance of the Mexican border for illegal immigrants. The amendment states that US funds will not be used to tell the Mexican government about the whereabouts of the Minuteman Project volunteers. Proponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are volunteer citizens doing what the federal government SHOULD be doing, but has failed to do. Opponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are vigilantes at best and anti-Mexican racists at worst. The amendment states:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.

* The amendment's sponsor said on its behalf:What this amendment does is it clarifies Congress' position on a Border Patrol practice or a practice of the US Government that tips off illegal immigrants as to where citizen patrols may be located.
* As a response to the lawlessness along the Mexican border, a group has sprung up called the Minutemen Project, and the Minutemen Project is definitely not politically correct in Washington DC. However, they filled a void which the government was unable to fill.
* There are over 7,000 volunteers in the Minutemen organization, and their help has been productive and good.
* What my amendment does is simply says that the U.S. Government cannot tip off the Mexican officials as to where these folks are located. Plain and simple, nothing fancy about it. I am sure the Border Patrol will say, oh, no, we are not doing that, and yet one of the Web pages of the Secretary of Mexico had the information very explicit, and we just do not believe that is a good practice.

Reference: Department of Homeland Security appropriations; Bill HR 5441 Amendment 968 ; vote number 2006-224 on Jun 6, 2006

Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.
Vote to pass the bill that would require hospitals to gather and report information on possible illegal aliens before hospitals can be reimbursed for treating them. The bill would also make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention, unless the employer meets particular conditions for exemption. The bill would specify that hospitals aren't required to provide care to undocumented aliens if they can be transported to their home country without a significant chance of worsening their condition.
Reference: Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments; Bill HR 3722 ; vote number 2004-182 on May 20, 2004

Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules.
Vote on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would extend by four months a law allowing some immigrants to remain in the country while pursuing legal residency.
Reference: Motion sponsoerd by Gekas, R-PA; Bill HR1885 ; vote number 2001-127 on May 21, 2001

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.
Vote to pass a bill to increase the number of temporary visas granted to highly skilled workers from 65,000 to 115,000 by the year 2000.
Reference: Bill introduced by Smith, R-TX.; Bill HR 3736 ; vote number 1998-460 on Sep 24, 1998

Sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations.
Paul sponsored against student visas from countries that support terrorism

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To limit the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals of Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, or countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Rep. PAUL: The US remains vulnerable to terrorist attacks more than a year after the tragedy of 9/11. Our borders remain porous--a virtual revolving door and welcome mat for those who would seek to harm us. This was never more evident than when news broke some time ago that the INS had actually renewed the visas for several of the 9/11 hijackers after the attack had taken place. We cannot prevent terrorism if we cannot keep terrorists out of our country.

This bill will deny student and "diversity" visas to anyone coming from a country currently on the State Department's list of terrorism-sponsoring countries. It may seem shocking that citizens from these countries can even still receive these visas, but it is true. We must put a lock on this revolving door if we are going to protect Americans from the continuing threat of terrorism on our soil.

Further, it is time we face reality regarding Saudi Arabia. We must remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Also, when al-Qaeda supporters were rounded up from Afghanistan, reports showed that of the 158 prisoners, more than 100 were Saudi nationals. With such an evident level of involvement from Saudi nationals in these activities, it is quite obvious that the Saudi government is not doing all it can, or all it should, in resolving this urgent problem. Therefore, Saudi citizens will also be denied student and "diversity" visas to the United States under this bill.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to House Subcommittee on Immigration & Border Security; never came to a vote.
Source: Terror Immigration Elimination Act (H.R.488) 03-HR0488 on Jan 29, 2003

Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration.
Paul scores 100% by FAIR on immigration issues

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a national, non-profit, public interest membership organization of concerned citizens united by their belief in the need for immigration reform. Founded in 1979, FAIR believes that the U.S. can and must have an immigration policy that is non-discriminatory and designed to serve the environmental, economic, and social needs of our country.

FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest—more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year.

With more than 70,000 members nationwide, FAIR is a non-partisan group whose membership runs the gamut from liberal to conservative.

The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: FAIR website 03n-FAIR on Dec 31, 2003

Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance.
Paul scores 83% by USBC on immigration issues

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 USBC scores as follows:

* 0%-30%: open-border stance (approx. 197 members)
* 30%-70%: mixed record on open borders (approx. 70 members)
* 70%-100%: sealed-border stance (approx. 202 members)

About USBC (from their website, www.usbc.org):

U.S. Border Control, founded in 1988, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, citizen's lobby. USBC is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation's borders and reforming our immigration policies. USBC [works with] Congressmen to stop amnesty; seal our borders against terrorism and illegal immigration; and, preserve our nation's language, culture and American way of life for future generations.

Our organization accepts no financial support from any branch of government. All our support comes from concerned citizens who appreciate the work we are doing to seal our borders against drugs, disease, illegal migration and terrorism and wish to preserve our nation's language, culture and heritage for the next generations.
Source: USBC website 06n-USBC on Dec 31, 2006

Government services in English only.
Paul co-sponsored bill requiring government services in English only

A bill to provide that Executive Order 13166 shall have no force or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes.

Be it enacted that Executive Order 13166, 'Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency' (August 16, 2000), is null and void and shall have no force or effect.

On August 11, 2000, the President signed Executive Order 13166. The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them.
Source: S.2719/H.R.768 08-S2719 on Mar 5, 2008

Declare English as the official language of the US.
Paul co-sponsored declaring English as the official language of the US

This bill declares English as the official language of the United States, establishes a uniform English language rule for naturalization.

1. The United States is comprised of individuals from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds, and continues to benefit from this rich diversity.
2. Throughout the history of the United States, the common thread binding individuals of differing backgrounds has been the English language.
3. Federal Representatives of shall have an obligation to enhance the role of English as the official language of the Federal Government.
4. The official functions of the Government of the United States shall be conducted in English.
5. All citizens should be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the laws of the US.
6. All naturalization ceremonies shall be conducted in English.

Source: English Language Unity Act (H.R.997) 2007-HR997 on Feb 12, 2007

[SelfTaught]

Hahaha, I finally got my computer to load the audio clip. Dobbs called Stossel "a silly little trick". Hahaha, treated! Called Stossel a hoe.

Anyways, if I had to choose, I would pick Stossel over Dobbs any day.

[Deborah K]

Well, I just don't worry about that stuff. I used to, but now I'm more concerned about how Obama & Co would enforce those doors, etc. I say, let them come, let them get jobs and be productive individuals, and shut down socialism and welfarism for all. We don't put up trade barriers between states because people might come from one state might burden the welfare programs of another state.

I've changed my position on this. I found this essay by Walter Block and Anthony Gregory very convincing: "On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe (http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:OoW-Eds0vE0J:mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf+walter+block+gregory+immigration&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShtCkrW7rn77HzqjVb6oJCCI6ho1a61qzU3kgp-66Ammd7uH0er_HsPI-lxNTmtrqLAOb_OHJaKrQRoahczW5GqxrLU_IUwcLZXSbtEZOLb T6pZ1rafoWyhQIAJ-xULuwn97-gS&sig=AFQjCNFCqXfLfeWlE01tRvi0C4JfX9RRxg).
.

I do worry about it. I've lived in a border state my entire life and have seen first hand the damage that has been done by a people who have no allegiance to this country and wish only to take what they can get. There are many illegals who are hard working, decent people who can't make a living in corrupt Mexico. I do not fault these people and wish that INS was more efficient so that workers could get green cards easier.

But unfortunately, there are a lot more criminal types sneaking across, who have no regard for anyone or anything. As a minuteman, I've been witness to the dumps these people leave behind like the one below. I know what the coyotes (human traffikers) do to the women, I've witnessed them try to sneak into our country. I know people who have died at the hands of someone who had no business being here, let alone, driving on our roads.

It's easy for those who haven't had to live with this to pass judgment, and in a safer world with a healthy, booming economy, I would be okay with an open border society. But that is not reality. And we have to play the hand we've been dealt.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2zrq1xv.jpg

And this is an example of the attitude from some in this community:

YouTube - The True Face of Hate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCT8XV0ut1A)

And the bad news is La Raza and MALDEF and ATZLAN are strong special interest groups and have this administration's ear. Just wait until amnesty is back on the table.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I wish there were more people like Lou Dobbs than we could really get things done.

I call it national libertarians. We would bring home the troops (from all over the world) and use them to deport the illegals. We would shut down welfare, section8 and other crapola, we would let the banks fail. End affirmative action, end all immigration, we would buy American and put high tariffs on the Chinese and others.

There's nothing Libertarian about that at all. That is purely protectionist-isolationist paranoia, that shows a distinct lack of any Economic knowledge.

People should buy whatever is in their self-interests (And they do). If that happens to be American products, good for them. If it happens to be cheap products good for them. If it happens to be more expensive higher quality foreign products, good for them.

What we need is more people like Judge Nap. on the air. Not Dobbsians. What we need is more knowledgable people, less blowhards on the air, like a Thomas Woods over O'Doofus, and Walter Block over Hannity.

Have them take a few journalism courses, and they would be good to go. Now who wouldn't watch, Stossel at 5, Beck at 7, Woods at 8, and Block at 9, and the Judge at 10.

[NYgs23]

I do worry about it. I've lived in a border state my entire life and have seen first hand the damage that has been done by a people who have no allegiance to this country and wish only to take what they can get. There are many illegals who are hard working, decent people who can't make a living in corrupt Mexico. I do not fault these people and wish that INS was more efficient so that workers could get green cards easier.

But unfortunately, there are a lot more criminal types sneaking across, who have no regard for anyone or anything. As a minuteman, I've been witness to the dumps these people leave behind like the one below. I know what the coyotes (human traffikers) do to the women, I've witnessed them try to sneak into our country. I know people who have died at the hands of someone who had no business being here, let alone, driving on our roads.

I'm sure it's a big problem, but the problem, as I can see it, is (a) the tragedy of the commons, with all these people fighting over "public property," be the roads, the schools, or the welfare programs and (b) a failure to enforce private property rights. When a Mexican enter onto the private property of an American citizen, it should be up to that property owner to decide whether to allow him or not, if he's a guest or a trespasser. Trespassers should be prosecuted. But we know how much the govt respects private property.

As for "public" property, it's supposedly "owned" by everyone and that's the problem. Rancher Smith may not what Mexicans using the public roads, while Business Jones may want them to. Since they supposedly both own the road, one will inevitably end up imposing his will on the other. The only true solution is privatization. Socialism inevitably leads to everyone battling over the "public" resource: the tragedy of the commons.

In the mean time, I'd rather not give the government power to build walls, have cameras and paratroopers patrol the border-lands. I don't trust them to even try to do what you'd want them to do. They'd never solve the problem. Same things with trying to prohibit businesses from hiring illegal immigrants, etc. Those rules would have to enforced somehow. The cure--increased government power--would be worse than the disease and wouldn't even cure the disease, just as the same tactics haven't solved drug abuse or anything else.

I'd focus instead on privatization of socialized resources and entitlement programs. Also, end the Drug War and globalist entities like NAFTA and the IMF; they destabilize the situation in Latin America and encourage migration.

Well, I'm tired of debating this issue right now, but I think you should read the essay I posted and see what you think.

[NYgs23]

Stossel at 5, Beck at 7, Woods at 8, and Block at 9, and the Judge at 10.

Now that's fair and balanced!

[SelfTaught]

Now that's fair and balanced!

If Walter Block had a television show, people would freak the fuck out. Not a bad thing.

[Kludge]

I am not amused.......

... Okay, maybe a little. This is benign and perhaps good for his ratings, though frankly, every performance I've seen of Stossel in the past couple weeks has been very poor (especially his bend-over on ORLY). It may have been a bad idea to move from his old formula.

[Andrew-Austin]

There's nothing Libertarian about that at all. That is purely protectionist-isolationist paranoia, that shows a distinct lack of any Economic knowledge.

People should buy whatever is in their self-interests (And they do). If that happens to be American products, good for them. If it happens to be cheap products good for them. If it happens to be more expensive higher quality foreign products, good for them.

What we need is more people like Judge Nap. on the air. Not Dobbsians. What we need is more knowledgable people, less blowhards on the air, like a Thomas Woods over O'Doofus, and Walter Block over Hannity.

Have them take a few journalism courses, and they would be good to go. Now who wouldn't watch, Stossel at 5, Beck at 7, Woods at 8, and Block at 9, and the Judge at 10.

Walter Block can't even speak at a supposedly open minded liberal campus without people jumping down his throat and baselessy labeling him a racist, the hysterics that would follow a WB nationally televised show would truly be epic.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Walter Block can't even speak at a supposedly open minded liberal campus without people jumping down his throat and baselessy labeling him a racist, the hysterics that would follow a WB nationally televised show would truly be epic.

If I was a multi-billionaire I would setup my own libertarian news channel. Imagine the epicness! Both the liberals and conservatives would be so confused. :D

Imagine having people of intelligence and objectivity actually practicing journalism and opinion-related programs?!

[rprprs]

I am not amused.......

... Okay, maybe a little. This is benign and perhaps good for his ratings, though frankly, every performance I've seen of Stossel in the past couple weeks has been very poor (especially his bend-over on ORLY). It may have been a bad idea to move from his old formula.

Yep. I'm a big fan, but his recent outings have been less than stellar. When attacked, he's been looking like a deer caught in the headlights. He's appearing dumbfounded and able to supply only the weakest defense of his positions. What's up with that? He really needs to up his game.:(

[NYgs23]

Yep. I'm a big fan, but his recent outings have been less than stellar. When attacked, he's been looking like a deer caught in the headlights. He's appearing dumbfounded and able to supply only the weakest defense of his positions. What's up with that? He really needs to up his game.:(

He's probably used to the staid, mannerly discourse that goes on on network news, where you actually get to explicate your positions, as opposed to the shouting matching of the cable channels.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

He's probably used to the staid, mannerly discourse that goes on on network news, where you actually get to explicate your positions, as opposed to the shouting matching of the cable channels.

I don't know why anyone subjugates themselve to the pithery that is O'Reilly. He is by far the worse. At least Hannity let's you speak, but then he doesn't have a single original thought in his head, and is like a broken record. Beck isn't bad. Greta isn't bad.

O'Reilly and to an extent Hannity really ruins Fox. A realistic move by Fox should be to move Hannity to 10, replace O'Reilly with Beck, Stossel takes Hannity's old spot, and then have the Judge take the 5 spot with Freedom Watch. That'll be a cold day in hell though.

[heavenlyboy34]

There's a difference between legal & illegal immigration. Calling illegals 'immigrants' is not going to attract mainstream Republicans to our cause. Personally I want less legal immigrants, period. As I believe out-of-control multiculturalism is dangerous for our nation. But that is my opinion.

Stossel, like most Libertarians, is not defending his point well. He should say why legal & illegal immigration is beneficial to our welfare state. If he can't come up with an answer then he should drop the issue altogether.


How many libertarians are you even aware of? In my experience, libertarians are better at defending their points than most. (RP is a libertarian, you know) :cool: P.S. Those in the Libertarian Party are not necessarily libertarian, which may have led to your confusion.

[Flash]

How many libertarians are you even aware of? In my experience, libertarians are better at defending their points than most. (RP is a libertarian, you know) :cool: P.S. Those in the Libertarian Party are not necessarily libertarian, which may have led to your confusion.

Stossel has his own TV show. Which, believe it or not, is a little more important than the Ron Paul forums. He needs to say WHY illegal immigration is beneficial to our welfare state. Otherwise he will portray Libertarianism as a fringe ideology. If he really wants illegal immigrants to flood America just so we can see what a failure welfare is, then he is basically admitting he wants America to experience a depression so it can conform to his Libertarian views.

[Flash]

Well it has been confirmed by Geraldo that Lou Dobbs will not be coming to Fox. Too bad, he could've really helped FBN.

[eOs]

We just got official word that kludge was not amused. We have the audio coming in now:
I am not amused...... There you have it folks, this thread is over.