PDA

View Full Version : Problems with Medina




SociallyRenderedImage
03-03-2010, 07:30 PM
As with every other candidate from the Tea Party Movement, they seem to stay quiet on illegal immigration and take a decidedly libertarian party stance.

While she states this seemingly "tough" border stance here, she then mentions:

THIS (http://medinafortexas.com/issues.php)


Secure our border: Texas must promote healthy immigration and trade through the legal ports of entry. We cannot wait on Washington D.C. to act. As governor I will make addressing illegal immigration and promoting sovereignty a top priority.How is it the job of the State to Promote anything? While walking about in a Libertarian cloak, I find that statement to be quite troubling and very authoritarian collectivist.

I will leave this issue of high unemployment out of it, that should be glaringly obvious.

It is not the job of the state to promote anything. She basically is campaigning against bloated government and then encourages it to get involved more so, in a very controversial issue. If anything, shouldn't she be championing the removal of welfare programs and access to public funds of people who have entered our country illegally?

Deb Medina seems to be aligned with Glenn Beck on the neocon issue of immigration.

In my mind she is nothing but a Ross Perot for necon Kay Bailey Hutchison. Not that I am a Perry supporter...But Kay will probably do more for the neocons than Perry can since he had to change course and will be indebted to 10th Amendment supporters if elected.

The globalists will stop at nothing to find an amnesty trojan horse.

Cowlesy
03-03-2010, 07:33 PM
Election was yesterday. Medina lost, Perry won.

Nice first post going on the attack against an amazing candidate that many of us on this forum supported.

Epic
03-03-2010, 07:33 PM
what's the point of this? the primary is over. Welcome to the forums.

And by the way, Medina is legit.

bruce leeroy
03-03-2010, 07:34 PM
As with every other candidate from the Tea Party Movement, they seem to stay quiet on illegal immigration and take a decidedly libertarian party stance.

While she states this seemingly "tough" border stance here, she then mentions:

THIS (http://medinafortexas.com/issues.php)

How is it the job of the State to Promote anything? While walking about in a Libertarian cloak, I find that statement to be quite troubling and very authoritarian collectivist.

I will leave this issue of high unemployment out of it, that should be glaringly obvious.

It is not the job of the state to promote anything. She basically is campaigning against bloated government and then encourages it to get involved more so, in a very controversial issue. If anything, shouldn't she be championing the removal of welfare programs and access to public funds of people who have entered our country illegally?

Deb Medina seems to be aligned with Glenn Beck on the neocon issue of immigration.

In my mind she is nothing but a Ross Perot for necon Kay Bailey Hutchison. Not that I am a Perry supporter...But Kay will probably do more for the neocons than Perry can since he had to change course and will be indebted to 10th Amendment supporters if elected.

The globalists will stop at nothing to find an amnesty trojan horse.\

I have a bit of a different interpretation to that quote
I see it as her saying that immigration law and process should be clear cut and simple instead of murky, that way it promotes/encourages immigration through legal rather than illegal means. as long as the US is a first world nation, immigration is going to be there.

SociallyRenderedImage
03-03-2010, 07:37 PM
I don't get the idea of painting a collectivist picture of "who the fourms like."

It isn't an attack on her, but more of a simple pointing out of an undiscussed issue.

I haven't had a chance to post yet, but illegal immigration and her stance is why she lost.

She will now become a Sarah Palin like spokesperson and most likely gain more power. But at the end of the day I think she is just another Glenn Beck style "libertarian."

It is important to bring up because she gained what I think she wanted all along and that is an underdog image. She had no chance of winning.

SociallyRenderedImage
03-03-2010, 07:41 PM
\

I have a bit of a different interpretation to that quote
I see it as her saying that immigration law and process should be clear cut and simple instead of murky, that way it promotes/encourages immigration through legal rather than illegal means. as long as the US is a first world nation, immigration is going to be there.
As far as I understand it, she supports the US Chamber of Commerce stance on immigration. The issue will not go away, and the US will no longer be a first world nation if it continues to ignore the rule of law.

She does support the Glenn Beck style importation of workers. In my opinion, workers and their skills are a commodity, just like any other product on the free market. One cannot violate sovereign protection to circumvent markets for the sake of cosmopolitan whims or obtaining an illegal advantage of another. Competition requires adherence to laws and contracts.

SociallyRenderedImage
03-03-2010, 07:42 PM
But my main point is that the State should support nothing but contractual obligations, many globalists want the state to control things like immigration. Again, what is lost here is the problem of massive ILLEGAL immigration from a third world neighbor.

rprprs
03-03-2010, 07:43 PM
Quite a few of us had a significant emotional investment in Deb's candidacy.
And this is not the most thoughtful way to introduce yourself to these forums.

dannno
03-03-2010, 07:45 PM
The Constitution says that the government can support healthy immigration policies. The Founders were not protectionists.

Oh ya, don't hate Mexicans. Don't believe the propaganda. They are mostly nice people who like big families and don't commit crimes.. I've lived around them for decades.

That is a generalization, I suppose you could say it is collectivist, but I'm trying to help protect their individual God given rights (not granted by the Constitution or our government, but by our creator)

Kotin
03-03-2010, 07:45 PM
:rolleyes:

squarepusher
03-03-2010, 07:45 PM
But my main point is that the State should support nothing but contractual obligations, many globalists want the state to control things like immigration. Again, what is lost here is the problem of massive ILLEGAL immigration from a third world neighbor.

whats your Stormfront username?

bruce leeroy
03-03-2010, 07:46 PM
But my main point is that the State should support nothing but contractual obligations, many globalists want the state to control things like immigration. Again, what is lost here is the problem of massive ILLEGAL immigration from a third world neighbor.

I didnt get that out of her statement. The way I interpreted it was that she wants immigration to come through legal, not illegal means. and yes, as a Texan, I understand all too well the massive problem of illegal immigration from mexico in particular. we as a state and as a country have to get a rein in on it. All I'm saying is that Ive yet to see any evidence that Medina is for amnesty, open borders or looser immigration policy.

LibertyEagle
03-03-2010, 07:55 PM
But my main point is that the State should support nothing but contractual obligations, many globalists want the state to control things like immigration. Again, what is lost here is the problem of massive ILLEGAL immigration from a third world neighbor.

She spoke about putting the Texas National Guard on the border to stop the illegal alien invasion of our state. That good enough for you?

And YES, she stood a chance at winning, and at minimum, getting into a runoff with Perry. She was 4 points from overcoming Hutchison and had a lot of momentum going. Then came Beck.

libertybrewcity
03-03-2010, 08:50 PM
constructive criticism is important though. there is always some better we can do to gain votes and win more often.

Jeros
03-03-2010, 08:52 PM
As with every other candidate from the Tea Party Movement, they seem to stay quiet on illegal immigration and take a decidedly libertarian party stance.

While she states this seemingly "tough" border stance here, she then mentions:

THIS (http://medinafortexas.com/issues.php)

How is it the job of the State to Promote anything? While walking about in a Libertarian cloak, I find that statement to be quite troubling and very authoritarian collectivist.

I will leave this issue of high unemployment out of it, that should be glaringly obvious.

It is not the job of the state to promote anything. She basically is campaigning against bloated government and then encourages it to get involved more so, in a very controversial issue. If anything, shouldn't she be championing the removal of welfare programs and access to public funds of people who have entered our country illegally?

Deb Medina seems to be aligned with Glenn Beck on the neocon issue of immigration.

In my mind she is nothing but a Ross Perot for necon Kay Bailey Hutchison. Not that I am a Perry supporter...But Kay will probably do more for the neocons than Perry can since he had to change course and will be indebted to 10th Amendment supporters if elected.

The globalists will stop at nothing to find an amnesty trojan horse.

I don't think you are going to gain much traction on RonPaulforums using the "watch out! She's a libertarian in disguise!" argument.

You also have your logic backwards. Let me explain.

Immigration is prevented by the state. (or the guns of private property owners, but that's a slightly different issue) The state must act aggressively to stop immigration. So the first question should therefor be: Is it the states roll to prevent immigration? If the state prevents immigration by promoting anti immigration policies, which it has done, and later decides to not enforce anti-immigration policies, it is not promoting immigration, it is just no longer aggressively promoting anti-immigration. You are confused about when the initiation of force occurred.

Perry wont be indebted to anybody but his masters. Who are his masters you might ask? I'll give you a clue: They are not Texas citizens.

Jeros
03-03-2010, 09:22 PM
As far as I understand it, she supports the US Chamber of Commerce stance on immigration. The issue will not go away, and the US will no longer be a first world nation if it continues to ignore the rule of law.

She does support the Glenn Beck style importation of workers. In my opinion, workers and their skills are a commodity, just like any other product on the free market. One cannot violate sovereign protection to circumvent markets for the sake of cosmopolitan whims or obtaining an illegal advantage of another. Competition requires adherence to laws and contracts.

The US will not be maintained in its current form anyway, so you might want to check that nationalism at the door of what ever state you end up in when the break up occurs.

That little tidbit also makes the entire immigration issue irrelevant. If the establishment wanted the US to fall apart tomorrow, it would fall apart tomorrow. The only problem with allowing the collapse is that the debt pyramid has not grown enough yet. When they bring it down, they want to make sure it stays down. Winding up the debt is like winding up a car toy. The more you wind, the faster it goes. You wouldn't think 1.5 trillion dollar deficits are unavoidable would you? It is completely avoidable, and therefor, designed. Ron Paul knows this. He already said the debt is never going to be paid back. Now think for a second, what are the practical implications of such a statement? The correct term would be default. Default = currency collapse = destruction of the dollar reserve = destruction of the US government. Like they say, you cant let a good crisis go to waste! I wonder what sort of plans they have for us?

You also make some more logical and technical errors:

1. When has the US followed the rule of law? You claim that the laws of the US should be complied with, but we all know that most US law is not compatible with the constitution or natural rights, so claiming that immigration is illegal and therefor bad, is naive at best. Most natural rights are illegal to practice without interference, thus, most laws are naturally criminal.
2.You reference free markets, and then imply that they should be respected though compliance with "sovereign protection." laws, but sovereign protection laws and free markets are diametrically opposed. They are trade offs. If you have more of one, you have less of the other.

Bern
03-04-2010, 09:06 AM
I haven't had a chance to post yet, but illegal immigration and her stance is why she lost.

You should really pay more attention if you really believe that. Her stance on immigration was not even on the radar in any fashion with regards to her candidacy. It boiled down to this (in order of importance to primary voters):

1] GB thuther interview - killed the campaign
































2-n] Property tax issue / fiscal responsibility / tea party sentiment / Perry sucks ass (TTC, etc.) / KBH wtf?

Pennsylvania
03-04-2010, 09:10 AM
It is not the job of the state to promote anything.

Including walls and fences?

John Taylor
03-04-2010, 09:15 AM
I don't get the idea of painting a collectivist picture of "who the fourms like."

It isn't an attack on her, but more of a simple pointing out of an undiscussed issue.

I haven't had a chance to post yet, but illegal immigration and her stance is why she lost.

She will now become a Sarah Palin like spokesperson and most likely gain more power. But at the end of the day I think she is just another Glenn Beck style "libertarian."

It is important to bring up because she gained what I think she wanted all along and that is an underdog image. She had no chance of winning.

Illegal immigration and Denra's stance on it is the reason she lost?

GTFO.

John Taylor
03-04-2010, 09:19 AM
But my main point is that the State should support nothing but contractual obligations, many globalists want the state to control things like immigration. Again, what is lost here is the problem of massive ILLEGAL immigration from a third world neighbor.

Globalists want governments to control immigration?

I think not, most globalists know that with a flood of uneducated third world voters they can press their socialist schemes yet further, so they actually FAVOR unlimited immigration.

(I'm not saying most Mexicans are socialists, or even left leaning, I'm just saying they are more poorly educated, and fall prey ---in the opinion of the socialist-lite crowd--- to the appeal for universal brotherhood and envy.)

seeker4sho
03-04-2010, 09:41 AM
As with every other candidate from the Tea Party Movement, they seem to stay quiet on illegal immigration and take a decidedly libertarian party stance.

While she states this seemingly "tough" border stance here, she then mentions:

THIS (http://medinafortexas.com/issues.php)

How is it the job of the State to Promote anything? While walking about in a Libertarian cloak, I find that statement to be quite troubling and very authoritarian collectivist.

I will leave this issue of high unemployment out of it, that should be glaringly obvious.

It is not the job of the state to promote anything. She basically is campaigning against bloated government and then encourages it to get involved more so, in a very controversial issue. If anything, shouldn't she be championing the removal of welfare programs and access to public funds of people who have entered our country illegally?

Deb Medina seems to be aligned with Glenn Beck on the neocon issue of immigration.

In my mind she is nothing but a Ross Perot for necon Kay Bailey Hutchison. Not that I am a Perry supporter...But Kay will probably do more for the neocons than Perry can since he had to change course and will be indebted to 10th Amendment supporters if elected.

The globalists will stop at nothing to find an amnesty trojan horse.

You certainly have a right to express your opinion. Having said that I do not want to hear it if it means attacking the true patriots of this country. Those of you attacking Medina and everyone else who are working their butts off to protect your sorry ass are despicable.

That begs the question: What have you done lately for liberty and a reversal of the heavy hand of government in this country? I am a modern day abolitionary. Everyone paying individual income taxes in this country is a slave. That includes you sir. Why not attack the theives in this government and leave the others alone? If I sound angry it is because I am :mad:

james1906
03-04-2010, 11:26 PM
Ok, the troll came and left

Jeros
03-05-2010, 12:11 AM
Ok, the troll came and left

Yeah, what the hell? He wasn't even a good troll. I felt like he really thought he had a chance to convince everybody that Medina is going to usher in the NWO.

constituent
03-05-2010, 11:41 AM
How is it the job of the State to Promote anything? While walking about in a Libertarian cloak, I find that statement to be quite troubling and very authoritarian collectivist.

Chosen, is that you?



The globalists will stop at nothing to find an amnesty trojan horse.



She does support the Glenn Beck style importation of workers. In my opinion, workers and their skills are a commodity, just like any other product on the free market. One cannot violate sovereign protection to circumvent markets for the sake of cosmopolitan whims or obtaining an illegal advantage of another. Competition requires adherence to laws and contracts.

Yep, it's you.

Riddle me this, how is it the job of the state to promote labor protectionism as you suggest?

Pennsylvania
03-05-2010, 12:04 PM
Chosen, is that you?

Ah, now it makes sense.