I'm my own alter egoOriginally Posted by Enforcer
Reply With QuoteSite Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
I'm my own alter ego
Guns can have bad consequences in very small applications. Let's ban those, too.
The epitome of libertarian populism
Euthanasia (it should be legal)
Abortion (it is a moral grey area, but government should have no role in it)
States rights (I don't think states have the right to oppress any class of people)
Evolution
Global warming (its clear that it is happening, however I don't believe government should do anything about it, so in that sense I agree with Paul)
Last edited by ZenBowman; 04-05-2012 at 02:37 PM.
No it's not, it's murder. And the government has the responsibility to protect life.
Show me your data. Even "climate change" alarmists have conceded that the earth hasn't warmed in the past decade. 2012 has slightly because of a solar maximum but next year will again show no signs of global warming.
This is not a thread for argument, we are simply stating where we differ with Dr Paul. There are plenty of threads where the specifics of these issues are being discussed.
I want a halt on immigration and I am much more supportive of nation-specific tariffs.
I also have no problem with states administering the death penalty.
The only real issue I disagree with him on is health care. I think if we switched to Chinese traditional medicine for chronic illnesses, we can save tons of money and dramatically increase service.
As far as everything else is concerned, my main complain with Ron Paul is that I think he can cut far more laws and regulations than he plans on.
I also disagree with him on the structure government should be. I believe one person should be in charge of the government and be held 100% accountable. Ron Paul apparently believes in Congress which is a complete joke. Anyone who has run a business knows its ideal to have only one person in charge of one responsibility. When you have multiple people in charge of one thing, everyone just sits around and points the finger at each other. Which happens to be exactly what congress is doing now.
---
Last edited by Chrysamere; 04-06-2012 at 02:14 PM.
His stance on abortion differs greatly from mine. That's the main thing I don't agree with him on.
In other words, you are accusing him of being dishonest and a liar and not telling people what he truly believes.
You are taking his comments in that video out of context. If you back it up a couple of minutes, the context is that he does not support a federal law for how to punish the crime of abortion, which is what he always says. Regarding birth control/estrogen, what he said is that there is no legal or scientific or medical proof that conception has occurred at that point, and I don't know if he meant that he personally would do that. He has made it 100% clear that he doesn't just "believe," but that as a medical doctor, he "knows" that life begins at conception. The only question is when conception occurs.
Here is a clear explanation of his belief on this subject, which someone posted on another thread:
Response from Ron Paul Campaign:
Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge
Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USA’s goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.
I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.
As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.
It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.
What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.
Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.
This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.
Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-poli...a-to-ron-paul/
..
Last edited by pcgame; 05-21-2012 at 02:03 PM.
..
Last edited by pcgame; 05-21-2012 at 02:03 PM.
Yeah, he is saying what a lot of people are saying. My parents immigrated from Germany.
People need to do it the right way.
"I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand
You know what's wrong with good, old fashioned honest dishonesty? It's dishonest.
When your parents, grand-parents, etc. emigrated to the United States, they did not have to jump through a continual set of unconstitutional hoops, but more importantly the vehicle that allowed them to come here actually existed.
For MILLIONS of people, no "proper" method exists. For many of the jobs and under the conditions employers are willing to hire there does not exist a credible visa.
Adding insult to injury, the same people that complain and say that people should come here the "right" way, but have this mindset that foreigners come to America "steal" (sic) the jobs of Americans, spend all day in a welfare line getting welfare, an then sitting all night in the emergency room getting "free" medical care only to show up, on time to get that job they "stole." So, these guys are all about controlling immigration and making sure people do it the "right" way.
Okay, the "right" way is to apply for a visa (which is a precursor to citizenship.) So, what these guys are arguing is to force welfare riding, job stealing, freeloaders to become citizens. Pour yourself a stiff one, because the idiocy does not end there.
The reality is the "right" way crowd realizes that no "right" way exists for MILLIONS. So, it becomes a game of semantics and they hope you don't understand my previous paragraph.
What is needed is to create a Guest Worker program with no expectation of citizenship. The "right" way crowd will not agree to such terms, but will continue to demand we force Guest Workers to become citizens... and so now they are telling you they want a welfare riding, job stealing, freeloader to LIE to you in addition to all of that and become a citizen. I told you that you would need a drink in order to wrap your head around this.
Adding insult to injury, the anti - immigrant lobby will profess its opposition to amnesty. But, without amnesty, we cannot have an amnesty for vets that brought weapons back to the U.S. and want to now keep them. Without amnesty, we cannot have a tax amnesty for people to bring BILLIONS of dollars back to the United States and get us out of this financial quagmire we are currently in. If the foreigners cannot have an amnesty, then nobody else can. It's that pesky equal protection of the laws guarantee in the 14th Amendment. An amnesty is an amnesty, is an amnesty, is an amnesty. Some day YOU may need one.
So, the real question is: How much of this anti immigrant B.S. are you willing to tolerate before dissecting this issue and looking at it objectively?
can you elaborate more on your last paragraph. Before writing a rebuttal, I want to make sure I understand you correctly.
"I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand
"In the months following the terrorist attacks, Congress passed several pieces of
legislation intended to enhance border security such as the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L.
107-56) and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-173)".
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31727.pdf
Also:
http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/ci...pic&topicid=18
SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL EVERYBODY THOSE LAWS ABOUT BORDER SECURITY ALREADY EXIST... AND AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES!!!!!!!
The previous paragraphs pretty well tell you what part of your argument is absolutely bogus. Having practiced immigration law for six years and having been involved in some aspect of it for over 30 years, there is NOTHING you're going to say that does not lead back to socialism.
The bottom line is, there is NO RIGHT WAY - on in the correct legal terminology "proper" method of entry for the jobs offered and under the conditions whereby employers offer those jobs. Over the last 50 years, since the liberals forced those idiotic laws into place, America has undergone significant changes. Jobs are created in hours and must be filled within a few days. Some of those jobs are like snow: we don't know how much work we will get or how long it will last. And you don't need to be a citizen in order to get a job... such a proposition is antithetical to the principles of Liberty.
I can't speak for all of the laws that are in place, because there is a good chance that I don't agree with a lot of them...just like others.
I am talking about laws based on principle. You must be accounted for, on some level.
"I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand
All I'm asking is that they pass the freaking law. We have 10 MILLION people in the U.S. without papers. We had the same number in 1986 PLUS an additional TWO MILLION people entering annually without papers. A little basic math ought to tell the anti - immigrant lobby that immigration is being controlled just fine, but as you said, you think everyone should be "accounted for" (which is code for National ID / REAL ID Act.)
Seventy five percent of the people in the United States without papers have gotten a Taxpayer Identification Number and pay taxes. Every ten years the Census Bureau knocks on the doors of houses and finds out who is here. When people are picked up for any kind of criminal activity, NCIC stores their fingerprints in a database. When someone goes to vote, they are required to show valid ID. You cannot draw any kind of welfare without producing your National Identity Card pursuant to the REAL ID Act...BTW, such National Identity Cards are not issued until the government cross checks your Socialist Surveillance Number (jokingly called a "Social Security Number") for verification.
We've put hundreds upon hundreds of tyrannical measures into play, all designed to circumvent the Constitution and bring about the ultimate POLICE STATE. I personally do not think you have a Right to try and account for people unless and until you think they've committed a crime and / or they try to become a public charge (be it welfare, unemployment, etc.) We have no legitimate / de jure (lawful) reason to use an updated version of the old highwayman techniques to oppress the people under the pretext of safety.
Everything you claim to want, you already have. I grudgingly ask Congress to implement a Guest Worker program just so your pretexts will be made a moot point. But, the anti - immigrant lobby does not want that. What they do want is a constitutional IMPOSSIBILITY. You are not going to be able to pass legislation that affects the foreigners Liberties and civil rights without said legislation affecting YOUR liberties and civil rights. It's part of the 14th Amendment that the anti - immigrant lobby chooses to ignore. Well, here's a news flash: Uncle Scam ain't ignoring that 14th Amendment. Your lobbying affects MY Liberties and MY Rights.
See, I disagree with that.
I don't think that the government should go around like the Nazi's and start knocking down doors.
"I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand
If RP went back to his former position on immigration he would lose his paleo support. Likewise, future liberty candidates ought to keep that in mind.
Yeah I disagree with Ron Paul on raw milk.. I like it, he doesnt.
I can disagree with my president on things like this especially when he wont arrest me for buying it.
We're back to square one. You either support the provisions of the so - called "Patriot Act" or you don't. You asked for border protection, Uncle Scam gave it to you. You asked for accountability, you got the REAL ID Act. You have what you're asking for.
The anti - immigrants want the politicians to lie to them. The pols claim they will do away with birth citizenship. The only ways to do that are to amend the Constitution OR create a Guest Worker program. If you think you can amend the Constitution, you are completely delusional.
When the anti - immigrant lobby claims this is all about "legal" immigration, they are being disingenuous. Visas cover specific fact situations: family members of Americans, diplomats, people with specific job skills, students, agricultural workers. No such visa covers the fact situation for MILLIONS of people residing in the United States as Guest Workers. IF there were, somebody would have pointed to that specific visa over the past 11 years of me debating this with them.
Laws that lock people out and deny to them their unalienable Rights are patently unconstitutional. It is also unconstitutional because such laws are discriminatory against some employers. For instance, the hospital can hire the foreigner, but their contract cleaning company cannot hire the foreigner. The only thing that has not been passed by Congress is a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. That would allow for a "proper" method of entry.
The biggest way that the border could have been protected was to allow citizens the unfettered Right to protect their private property against trespassers. In 2003, the "movement" chose not to do so. Today, the standing court rulings are that foreigners have civil rights... and in 2003 those civil rights trumped the Rights of American land owners. The legislatures cannot help you. The case was resolved in court.
You cannot say with absolute certainty that you understand Ron Paul's position. Millions of people having no "proper" method of entry are still law abiding. They get Taxpayer Identification Numbers and obey the laws. It's not their fault that we have a welcome mat inviting them here, employers willing to hire them, people willing to do business with them and then NO credible way of properly entering the United States.
If the law tells you to obey the laws regarding "proper" entry, but then does not provide that "proper" method, then the law obviously does not apply to you. IF / WHEN the laws infringe upon the Rights of others, those laws can legally be ignored.
He won't get rid of entitlements and he has to get rid of the deficit
Hes also social conservative which is a form of authoritarianism
Gold Standard will give the elites even more power, we need a resource backed economy
He won't amend the constitution to allow anything as legal tender not just silver and gold.
I would like it if he was anti war or war at last resort, not just congressional declaration.
Secure the border that is goverments job
Illegals should not be rewarded for breaking the law
Skeptical of a person with a religion being for freedom but i could be wrong, as long as they don't impose it.
Hes far from perfect but hes a great start in the right direction.
I like posts like this. Despite the entire conversation, the author of this post seems to ignore all the posts that have been made so far. His use of the English language is atrocious. Most foreigners do at least as good a job expressing themselves. The author of this post has no concept of reality, but once again, let us straighten him out:
Individualism wrote:
"Secure the border that is goverments job"
RESPONSE: The border is quite secure, but the anti immigrant lobby has a real red herring with this one. They want immigration to be a crime (which it is not) and then they want the military to enforce domestic laws (which most assuredly is NOT their job)
Individualism wrote:
"Illegals should not be rewarded for breaking the law"
RESPONSE: NOBODY is being rewarded for breaking the law, but Individualism thinks government should exercise some magic power to enforce laws that do not exist. He's insinuating that people in this country are "illegals' and are committing crimes. He is exactly 100 percent WRONG.
Individualism wrote:
"Skeptical of a person with a religion being for freedom but i could be wrong, as long as they don't impose it."
RESPONSE: The whole concept of Liberty is a Christian proposition. "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (AKJV) The NIV version is a bit more in line with this thread: "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
"While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
If we do not stand up to the paleos, as you call them, they will hand America over to National Socialists because they do not understand the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded.
..
Last edited by pcgame; 05-21-2012 at 01:57 PM.
Personal issues, mostly. It's hard to disagree with someone with different views when they subscribe to a "live and let live" philosophy. The president should have as little to do with my everyday life as possible.
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.
-Thomas Jefferson
I never understood what that actually meant . Does National Socialist serve to be the spoken replacement for saying Fascism? Fascism clearly defined as a merge of corporation and state, of course.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us