Ron Paul on CNBC

[Warlord]

Great to see Ron hitting out of the park as per usual!

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/01/08/former-us-rep-ron-paul-the-fed-is-too-powerful.html

[Warlord]

LOL Dr. Paul easily dealt with Liesmann... almost too easy

[Schifference]

Ron's mouth cannot keep up with his brain these days.

[CaptUSA]

Ron's mouth cannot keep up with his brain these days.

lol - Most people in here can't keep up with his brain either.

Ron Paul was spot on in this interview, as always.

[Superfluous Man]

The part beginning at 4:20 was pretty good as an explanation of his immigration position.

A lot of people seem to infer from him saying things like, "I'm not for totally free immigration or totally open borders," that he supports restricting immigration. But he uses a variation of that line here and explains what he means by it. And it's clear that he doesn't mean that he's for restricting immigration. He very explicitly explains his position as being for unlimited freedom of people to come here to work and engage in commerce, but that he doesn't want to extend welfare benefits to them or make it easy for them to become citizens.

I also noticed how he said that he's not for the wall both because he's not for walling people out or for walling people in.

In the past he's used that line about how he's against a wall because it could be used to keep us in, and some have inferred that that was the only reason to be against it. But here he says he's also against it because it would keep people out.

[Swordsmyth]

The part beginning at 4:20 was pretty good as an explanation of his immigration position.

A lot of people seem to infer from him saying things like, "I'm not for totally free immigration or totally open borders," that he supports restricting immigration. But he uses a variation of that line here and explains what he means by it. And it's clear that he doesn't mean that he's for restricting immigration. He very explicitly explains his position as being for unlimited freedom of people to come here to work and engage in commerce, but that he doesn't want to extend welfare benefits to them or make it easy for them to become citizens.

I also noticed how he said that he's not for the wall both because he's not for walling people out or for walling people in.

In the past he's used that line about how he's against a wall because it could be used to keep us in, and some have inferred that that was the only reason to be against it. But here he says he's also against it because it would keep people out.
Ron has said many contradictory things and he seems to have lost touch with practicality since leaving electoral politics.

[CaptUSA]

Ron has said many contradictory things and he seems to have lost touch with practicality since leaving electoral politics.

Are you kidding me? He seems pretty damned consistent to me. Maybe you never really understood him in the first place?

Don't worry - there were a lot of people like that. Many people projected on to Ron Paul what they wanted to believe. Kinda like what they're doing now with Trump. And like they did with Obama.

[Origanalist]

Are you kidding me? He seems pretty damned consistent to me. Maybe you never really understood him in the first place?

Don't worry - there were a lot of people like that. Many people projected on to Ron Paul what they wanted to believe. Kinda like what they're doing now with Trump. And like they did with Obama.

Or maybe he was never on board with him in the first place.

[Swordsmyth]

Are you kidding me? He seems pretty damned consistent to me. Maybe you never really understood him in the first place?

Don't worry - there were a lot of people like that. Many people projected on to Ron Paul what they wanted to believe. Kinda like what they're doing now with Trump. And like they did with Obama.
He said he was for increased border patrols and for ending visas from terrorist countries, that means controlled immigration.

He has said many contradictory things and his position has been changing since he left office.

[CaptUSA]

He said he was for increased border patrols and for ending visas from terrorist countries, that means controlled immigration.

He has said many contradictory things and his position has been changing since he left office.

Nope. You just fail to see the nuances. But not unexpected. You've called me an anarchist, a globalist, and you still think I'm for open borders. Because to you, you can't even conceive of the liberty position.

[Swordsmyth]

Nope. You just fail to see the nuances. But not unexpected. You've called me an anarchist, a globalist, and you still think I'm for open borders. Because to you, you can't even conceive of the liberty position.
There are no nuances, totally free immigration is what you want and what Ron has sometimes endorsed but he said he wasn't in favor of that.

You open borders types treat Ron's words like liberals treat the Constitution.

Ron's position has changed he voted for the secure fence act and then he later said he regretted that because it could be used to keep people in, he was not against using it to keep people out or he would never have voted for it at all.

[Swordsmyth]

Or maybe he was never on board with him in the first place.
I'm on board with most of his positions and I was on board when he was for border security, I didn't leave Ron on this issue, he left me.

Ron's position has changed he voted for the secure fence act and then he later said he regretted that because it could be used to keep people in, he was not against using it to keep people out or he would never have voted for it at all.

[CaptUSA]

There are no nuances, totally free immigration is what you want and what Ron has sometimes endorsed but he said he wasn't in favor of that.

You open borders types treat Ron's words like liberals treat the Constitution.

Ron's position has changed he voted for the secure fence act and then he later said he regretted that because it could be used to keep people in, he was not against using it to keep people out or he would never have voted for it at all.

lol - you still don't get it. Liberty is the answer. You don't need open borders and you don't need more government. You need liberty and this "problem" goes away. But guess what?? Your "rulers" (your word) don't want the problem to go away. They love it as a divisive issue that they can use to grow their power and control you with. You are but a pawn in their plans.

[Origanalist]

lol - you still don't get it. Liberty is the answer. You don't need open borders and you don't need more government. You need liberty and this "problem" goes away. But guess what?? Your "rulers" (your word) don't want the problem to go away. They love it as a divisive issue that they can use to grow their power and control you with. You are but a pawn in their plans.

A very enthusiastic one.

[Swordsmyth]

lol - you still don't get it. Liberty is the answer. You don't need open borders and you don't need more government. You need liberty and this "problem" goes away. But guess what?? Your "rulers" (your word) don't want the problem to go away. They love it as a divisive issue that they can use to grow their power and control you with. You are but a pawn in their plans.
Liberty would not make this problem go away, it would increase the incentive for foreign socialists to come here and they or their offspring would destroy liberty.

[CaptUSA]

Liberty would not make this problem go away, it would increase the incentive for foreign socialists to come here and they or their offspring would destroy liberty.

Very enthusiastic pawn indeed.

Again, you're wrong. Because you are only thinking from your government-induced fear mindset. If this country embraced liberty, then the incentive would be for people seeking liberty to come here. The socialists would steer clear. It is our socialists policies that attract the very sort of people you are talking about. Liberty attracts people who seek a chance to use their own mind, body, and hands to produce things for other people.

Liberty is the only answer. You are stuck debating which path to tyranny is better - I'll have none of it.

[Swordsmyth]

Very enthusiastic pawn indeed.

Again, you're wrong. Because you are only thinking from your government-induced fear mindset. If this country embraced liberty, then the incentive would be for people seeking liberty to come here. The socialists would steer clear. It is our socialists policies that attract the very sort of people you are talking about. Liberty attracts people who seek a chance to use their own mind, body, and hands to produce things for other people.

Liberty is the only answer. You are stuck debating which path to tyranny is better - I'll have none of it.
You are delusional, America used to be much freer and the wealth that that created attracted socialists from all over the world who shifted our politics socialist.

If you were right Demoncrats would stay in California and the deep blue states but instead they flee the hellholes that they create and infect states with more liberty, the same thing happens on a global scale and they don't leave their socialism behind and embrace the liberty that created the wealth that attracts them.

[jkr]

"bu bu gold is da de-basments!"

tell the chi coms that...