Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 268

Thread: Ron Paul's immigration position from 2007

  1. #121
    @Brian4Liberty

    Considering this thread refers to 2007, and the debate is whether Ron has changed his mind/position to further the cause of Prosperity through Peaceful solutions, should this be moved to the Open Discussion sub forum?

    Ron has been pretty clear about his current position since at least 2011 up until now, evidenced by his writings and the RonPaulLibertyReport, I believe this Ron Paul sub forum should be used to spread Ron’s current message.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    @Brian4Liberty

    Considering this thread refers to 2007, and the debate is whether Ron has changed his mind/position to further the cause of Prosperity through Peaceful solutions, should this be moved to the Open Discussion sub forum?

    Ron has been pretty clear about his current position since at least 2011 up until now, evidenced by his writings and the RonPaulLibertyReport, I believe this Ron Paul sub forum should be used to spread Ron’s current message.
    This thread belongs right where it is and is clearly labeled as Ron's position from 2007.
    It is here to keep people like you from claiming that those who supported Ron in 2007 are "evil statists" who "don't belong on Ron Paul Forums".
    You are clearly trying to defeat that purpose by having it moved so I guess that proves it should stay here.
    @Brian4Liberty, this thread needs to be sticky.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #123
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:








    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.










    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26





    We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country


    Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law.

    No amnesty.

    End birthright citizenship

    current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  5. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:








    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.










    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26





    We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country


    Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law.

    No amnesty.

    End birthright citizenship

    current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity.
    Yep. I agree with Ron Paul. That's why I have been a member here since 2007.

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    This thread belongs right where it is and is clearly labeled as Ron's position from 2007.
    It is here to keep people like you from claiming that those who supported Ron in 2007 are "evil statists" who "don't belong on Ron Paul Forums".
    You are clearly trying to defeat that purpose by having it moved so I guess that proves it should stay here.
    @Brian4Liberty, this thread needs to be sticky.
    You have made CRYSTAL CLEAR in multiple posts, thread after thread, that you do NOT support or respect Private Property Rights, or Contract Rights between employer/employee, which are part of Ron Paul’s and this sites mission. Your motives are more than obvious, which oppose Individual Liberty and prosperity. And the fact that you consistently lump people into “groups”, while accusing people here of being communists speaks more than volumes.

    Ron’s current quote, which does not include “we must do whatever it takes”:

    Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.

    If anything should be sticky’d, it should be Post #7.


    The question @Brian4Liberty should ask is, what would Ron Paul himself prefer.
    Last edited by PAF; 08-16-2019 at 09:20 PM.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  7. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    You have made CRYSTAL CLEAR in multiple posts, thread after thread, that you do NOT support or respect Private Property Rights, or Contract Rights between employer/employee, which are part of Ron Paul’s and this sites mission. Your motives are more than obvious, which oppose Individual Liberty and prosperity. And the fact that you consistently lump people into “groups”, while accusing people here of being communists speaks more than volumes.

    Ron’s current quote, which does not include “we must do whatever it takes”:



    The question @Brian4Liberty should ask is, what would Ron Paul himself prefer.
    I have made it crystal clear that I support private property rights and contract rights, that's why those who oppose them must be kept out of this country and we must do whatever it takes to accomplish that.

    People are part of groups, and cultural groups that don't believe in liberty have a historic track record of destroying it.

    Your policy of liberty is penny wise and pound foolish and I have reason to believe that that is deliberate.

    Ron would prefer that his supporters from 2007 weren't driven out of the forum by trolls like you.

    Ron's current position on the wall has nothing to do with this thread and can be debated elsewhere as I have done before.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    You have made CRYSTAL CLEAR in multiple posts, thread after thread, that you do NOT support or respect Private Property Rights, or Contract Rights between employer/employee, which are part of Ron Paul’s and this sites mission. Your motives are more than obvious, which oppose Individual Liberty and prosperity. And the fact that you consistently lump people into “groups”, while accusing people here of being communists speaks more than volumes.

    Ron’s current quote, which does not include “we must do whatever it takes”:




    If anything should be sticky’d, it should be Post #7.


    The question @Brian4Liberty should ask is, what would Ron Paul himself prefer.
    You know who doesnt respect private property? People who come here illegally and steal my property using the government. Free stuff isnt free if the government has to take it from me and i don't have a choice.

  9. #128
    This thread isn't about the wall
    Ron's current position on the wall has nothing to do with this thread
    Ron Paul's positions on immigration have everything to do with this thread. That's exactly what this thread is about. This thread was only started as an attempt to make Ron Paul = trump (or vice versa), by someone whose entire purpose here is to shyll for trump and oppose Ron Paul. So if the OP wants to discuss Ron Paul's immigration policy, it is therefore necessary to discuss how it differs from trump's immigration policy, and why genuine Ron Paul supporters support Ron Paul's immigration policy, while at the same time, opposing trump's immigration policy. In other words, supporting Ron Paul's immigration policy is to oppose trump's immigration policy.

    PAF has already kindly provided Ron Paul's immigration policy, with regards to walling our country in (like communist countries such as north korea and east germany). Let's take the next way in which Ron Paul's immigration policy differs from trump's immigration policy, which is the abuse of those held in US custody. The person shylling for trump claims that there is
    no policy of abuse
    with trump. But abuse of those in US custody absolutely IS officially part of trump's immigration policy:

    https://ktla.com/2019/08/15/9th-circ...not-need-soap/
    Immigrant children detained by the U.S. government should get edible food, clean water, soap and toothpaste under a longstanding agreement over detention conditions, a federal appeals panel ruled Thursday in dismissing a Trump administration bid to limit what must be provided.
    “Assuring that children eat enough edible food, drink clean water, are housed in hygienic facilities with sanitary bathrooms, have soap and toothpaste, and are not sleep-deprived are without doubt essential to the children’s safety,” the panel wrote.

    The ruling followed a June hearing where a U.S. government lawyer said the agreement was vague and might not require that a toothbrush and soap be provided to children during brief stays in custody. Requiring these items, the government said, would be a change in the agreement.

    Leecia Welch, senior director of legal advocacy and child welfare at the National Center for Youth Law, said the panel’s ruling wasn’t surprising. “It should shock the conscience of all Americans to know that our government argued children do not need these bare essentials,” she said.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-trump-850744/
    The government is not required to provide migrant children in custody on the border with soap, toothbrushes, or adequate bedding, a lawyer for the Trump Justice Department insisted in court Tuesday. A consent decree guaranteeing “safe and sanitary” conditions, the government argued, is too vague to be enforceable. The assertions left a panel of three judges for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals incredulous, with one stating plainly: “I find that inconceivable that the government would say that.
    Judge Berzon zeroed in on the sleep question, citing findings that the Border Patrol made children spend days in facilities with 24/7 artificial light, no beds, cold cement floors, and only an aluminum blanket for insulation. “You’re really going to stand up and tell us that being able to sleep isn’t a question of ‘safe and sanitary’ conditions?” Berzon asked. “You’re not really going to say that, right?”

    Fabian, the Justice Department lawyer, managed a halting, sputtering response before Berzon broke in again to insist sleep is covered by the language of the consent decree. “You can’t be sanitary or safe as a human being if you can’t sleep,” she said.


    Fabian suggested that sleep is not guaranteed because it is not spelled out in the language of the Flores agreement. “One has to assume it was … not enumerated by the parties because either the parties couldn’t reach agreement on how to enumerate that or it was left to the agencies to determine,” she said. Judge Fletcher cut in, insisting it is “obvious enough that if you’re putting people into a crowded room to sleep on a concrete floor with an aluminum blanket on top of them, that that doesn’t comply with the agreement.”
    Fletcher: Are you arguing seriously that you do not read the agreement as requiring you do something other than what I described: Cold all night long. Lights on all night long. Sleep on the concrete floor and you get an aluminum blanket?”

    Berzon: And too crowded to lie down?

    Fletcher: Are you saying that that’s OK? I find that inconceivable that the government would say that that is “safe and sanitary.”

    Fabian: Again, as I said, think sleep is clearly at one end of findings.

    The proceedings then turned to hygiene items. Judge Fletcher took issue with the government’s claim that the consent decree didn’t guarantee any specific items. “It was soap!” said Judge Fletcher. “That sounds like part of ‘safe and sanitary.’ Do you disagree with that?”

    Judge Tashima cut in: “Granted that the decree doesn’t have a list of items that has to be supplied in order to be ‘sanitary.’” But he insisted: “It’s within everybody’s common understanding. If you don’t have a toothbrush if you don’t have soap, if you don’t have a blanket, it’s not ‘safe and sanitary.’ Wouldn’t everybody agree to that? Do you agree to that?”

    Fabian responded: “Well— I think it’s— I think those are— there’s fair reason to find that those things may be part of ‘safe and sanitary.’”

    “Not ‘may be.’ Are a part,” Tashima cut in. “Why do you say ‘may be’? You mean there are circumstances where a person doesn’t need to have a toothbrush, toothpaste and soap? For days?”
    In contrast, one of the issues Ron Paul campaigned on was ending abuse of those in US custody. The shylls will doubtless attempt to argue that Ron Paul was campaigning against torture of those in US custody, on an issue other than immigration. To my knowledge, Ron Paul never spoke directly to the issue of abuse of those in custody with specific regards to immigration policy, but given how consistant Ron Paul is in his positions, there is no doubt that he is opposed to abuse of people held in US custody, regardless of the particular government agency involved:

    https://original.antiwar.com/paul/20...on-iraq-abuse/
    Clearly the abuse and humiliation of those in custody is deplorable
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/electi...t-over-torture
    “I think it’s uncivilized, it has no practical advantages and its really un-American to accept on principle that we will torture people that we capture,”
    https://www.thenewamerican.com/print...mp-and-torture
    Against that backdrop, President Trump has stated that he believes torture is both effective and justifiable. His remarks were made less than a week after he became president. In an interview with ABC News on January 25, 2017, he said that where terrorism is concerned, America needs to “fight fire with fire” and that he wants to bring back torture because it “absolutely” “works.”

    That wasn’t the first time Trump said that, either. In November 2015 — when he was the leading Republican candidate, Trump appeared on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, saying he “would absolutely bring back interrogation and strong interrogation,” including waterboarding. “You know, they don’t use waterboarding over there; they use chopping off people’s heads,” he said. “I would bring it back. I think waterboarding is peanuts compared to what they’d do to us.”
    During the early debates of the presidential primary cycle in 2011, Dr. Ron Paul said, “It’s really un-American to accept, on principle, that we will torture people that we capture.” Paul was like a voice crying in the wilderness; other Republican candidates praised the practice of torture — even while blurring the lines defining what is and is not torture.
    Doubtless the trumpettes and shylls will attempt to claim that there is somehow a difference between people in US custody in concentration camps as part of trump's immigration policy, and people in custody as part of unConstitutional undeclared wars. But people in US custody are people in US custody, no matter why they are in Us custody. And abuse is abuse, torture is torture, no matter what form it takes. The sleep deprivation that people in trump's concentration camps are being subject to is considered a form of torture. And just as those who opposed Ron Paul for opposing torture of those in US custody by claiming that torture isn't really torture, those opposed to Ron Paul will doubtless attempt to claim that this particular form of torture (sleep deprivation) isn't really torture.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #129

  12. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Ron Paul says he has only changed his position once and that was on the death penalty. Until he says I have changed my position on physically securing the border than you are bull$#@!.
    Where has anyone claimed that Ron Paul has changed his position on securing the border? It's always remained consistent.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  13. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    Where has anyone claimed that Ron Paul has changed his position on securing the border? It's always remained consistent.
    Why can't someone be for securing the border and be a Ron Paul supporter and be a Trump supporter as well?

  14. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    Ron Paul's positions on immigration have everything to do with this thread. That's exactly what this thread is about. This thread was only started as an attempt to make Ron Paul = trump (or vice versa), by someone whose entire purpose here is to shyll for trump and oppose Ron Paul. So if the OP wants to discuss Ron Paul's immigration policy, it is therefore necessary to discuss how it differs from trump's immigration policy, and why genuine Ron Paul supporters support Ron Paul's immigration policy, while at the same time, opposing trump's immigration policy. In other words, supporting Ron Paul's immigration policy is to oppose trump's immigration policy.

    PAF has already kindly provided Ron Paul's immigration policy, with regards to walling our country in (like communist countries such as north korea and east germany). Let's take the next way in which Ron Paul's immigration policy differs from trump's immigration policy, which is the abuse of those held in US custody. The person shylling for trump claims that there is with trump. But abuse of those in US custody absolutely IS officially part of trump's immigration policy:

    https://ktla.com/2019/08/15/9th-circ...not-need-soap/




    https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-trump-850744/




    In contrast, one of the issues Ron Paul campaigned on was ending abuse of those in US custody. The shylls will doubtless attempt to argue that Ron Paul was campaigning against torture of those in US custody, on an issue other than immigration. To my knowledge, Ron Paul never spoke directly to the issue of abuse of those in custody with specific regards to immigration policy, but given how consistant Ron Paul is in his positions, there is no doubt that he is opposed to abuse of people held in US custody, regardless of the particular government agency involved:

    https://original.antiwar.com/paul/20...on-iraq-abuse/


    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/electi...t-over-torture


    https://www.thenewamerican.com/print...mp-and-torture



    Doubtless the trumpettes and shylls will attempt to claim that there is somehow a difference between people in US custody in concentration camps as part of trump's immigration policy, and people in custody as part of unConstitutional undeclared wars. But people in US custody are people in US custody, no matter why they are in Us custody. And abuse is abuse, torture is torture, no matter what form it takes. The sleep deprivation that people in trump's concentration camps are being subject to is considered a form of torture. And just as those who opposed Ron Paul for opposing torture of those in US custody by claiming that torture isn't really torture, those opposed to Ron Paul will doubtless attempt to claim that this particular form of torture (sleep deprivation) isn't really torture.


    Leftist drivel.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #133
    Ron Paul's position from 2007:

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:









    • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.











    http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26





    We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country


    Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law.

    No amnesty.

    End birthright citizenship

    current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  16. #134
    Leftist drivel.
    More direct opposition to Ron Paul. Calling Ron Paul a leftist is the typical attack used when those who oppose him are unable to defend their indefensible positions.

    Why can't someone be for securing the border and be a Ron Paul supporter and be a Trump supporter as well?
    Because Ron Paul's and trump's positions on how they would secure the border are in direct opposition to each other.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  17. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    More direct opposition to Ron Paul. Calling Ron Paul a leftist is the typical attack used when those who oppose him are unable to defend their indefensible positions.


    Because Ron Paul's and trump's positions on how they would secure the border are in direct opposition to each other.
    Because Ron Paul's message is education, he even said that's what his 2012 election was all about. Trump has to play by the rules of being universally opposed by democrats and rinos on this issue and stll needs to get the goal accomplished. They might have different ways of doing things, but Ron Pauls 2007 (2008 presidential platform) policy specifically says "We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country". So you could even imagine Ron Paul doing similar things with the tools he is given. You can only work with the tools you are given to accomplish anything. Ron Paul said do whatever it takes when he is running a serious platform and not trying to educate people on his entire message and liberty.

  18. #136
    Because Ron Paul's message is education, he even said that's what his 2012 election was all about. Trump has to play by the rules of being universally opposed by democrats and rinos on this issue and stll needs to get the goal accomplished. They might have different ways of doing things, but Ron Pauls 2007 (2008 presidential platform) policy specifically says "We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country". So you could even imagine Ron Paul doing similar things with the tools he is given. You can only work with the tools you are given to accomplish anything. Ron Paul said do whatever it takes when he is running a serious platform and not trying to educate people on his entire message and liberty.
    Do you seriously believe that quote means that Ron Paul would go directly against what he campaigned on? If so, then that is to say that Ron Paul is lying about his positions, and to thus directly oppose him.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    Do you seriously believe that quote means that Ron Paul would go directly against what he campaigned on? If so, then that is to say that Ron Paul is lying about his positions, and to thus directly oppose him.
    Do you really think Ron Pauls liberty message isn't different than how he would govern based on the tools and what he can do? Ron Paul hammers on his message and never even endorsed Rand Paul's platform because he didn't want to distort his liberty philosophy that he tries to get across to people.

  21. #138
    Because Ron Paul's and trump's positions on how they would secure the border are in direct opposition to each other.
    Direct opposition to how Ron Paul would govern even though he said do whatever it takes? If the Republicans and RINOS and democrats wanted to secure the border it would of been done 30 years ago. This is obviously whatever it takes, and Trump is doing whatever it takes even shutting the government down and blaming all of the opposition he gets from trying to secure the border on the democrats so that Republicans don't lose the senate when the media runs the narrative that its the Republicans fault the government is shut down because Trump wanted to secure the border.

  22. #139
    Again, do you seriously believe that Ron Paul would do things that he specifically campaigned against?
    Ron Paul stated many times how he would secure the border by bringing our troops home from defending other countries' borders, to defend our own. He is specifically against all the other big government police state things that trump has done or is trying to do in the name of securing the border. What about this do you not understand?
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  23. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    Again, do you seriously believe that Ron Paul would do things that he specifically campaigned against?
    Ron Paul stated many times how he would secure the border by bringing our troops home from defending other countries' borders, to defend our own. He is specifically against all the other big government police state things that trump has done or is trying to do in the name of securing the border. What about this do you not understand?
    Are you seriously not understanding what whatever it takes means or are you pretending like that was never in his presidential platform? I guess if you just selectively not listen to things Ron Paul says and only listen to things that he says in his liberty philosophy that he tries to teach people than you can not fix anything especially when you have more than 2/3 rds of the government working against you.

  24. #141
    Ron Paul was very clear and explicit in what it would take to secure our borders. Using that line to shyll for trump's big government police state is more direct opposition to Ron Paul.
    I have an autographed copy of Revolution: A Manifesto for sale. Mint condition, inquire within. (I don't sign in often, so please allow plenty of time for a response)

  25. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    Ron Paul was very clear and explicit in what it would take to secure our borders. Using that line to shyll for trump's big government police state is more direct opposition to Ron Paul.
    Where does he say that on his 2007 presidential platform, the one he said "Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.". Bringing all the troops home from all the bases in the world isn't possible without Ron Pauls monetary policy. You can't seperate monetary policy and foreign policy Ron Paul has said that. Trump can't unilaterally change the monetary system of our government. So this is doing whatever it takes to secure the border because if we let unlimited people come here that take more money out of our unfunded liabilities it is a disaster for the economy and leaves the border wide open for bad actors to come here and do our country harm.

  26. #143
    Well said, @invisible. To follow up...

    Doctor Ron Paul would never advocate:

    - Deprive children of sleep
    - Sleep on concrete floors
    - 24/7 artificial light
    - Unsanitary conditions


    He would also never advocate Government Eminent Domain to take rightful private property, close up/reporting businesses, or divide families and towns with a wall, a wall of which is miles and miles away from the actual border which is the Rio Grande.

    When Ron Paul states "we must do whatever it takes", it is, or should be well understood that "we must do whatever it takes" in accordance to Freedom, Liberty and Fiscal Responsibility. Taking any single one of those out of the equation would only propagate what we are trying to prevent.

    Whatever Ron Paul outlined in 2007, he has made crystal clear in his writings and videos from 2011 to present, and that is the message Ron wishes to continue.

    End Welfare/Incentives.
    End Birthright citizenship.
    Protect our borders and what our border stands for (Bill of Rights, NOT Constitution-Free Zones), and NOT wall ourselves in/out.

    Neocon Shills who are repulsed by the mere mention of Libertarians, AnCaps, etc., and strive for FACISM will continuously beat over and over again that "we must do whatever it takes" to the point of stripping everybody of their Natural Born Rights, including shoot to kill on sight and depriving locked up children of sleep, claiming it will "protect our freedoms".


    For those who are that hate-filled and MUST see to it that we "militarize" our country "whatever it takes", how about moving the Border Patrol down to the Rio Grande where the actual border is, instead of mucking with Private Property and human beings lives 50-100 miles in. Perhaps the "Constitution-Free Zone" can then be eliminated, get Fed.gov OFF OUR BACKS, and actually save us a buck for cheapos like me.



    Sep 7, 2011




    Apr 20, 2017
    At 3:45 mark




    Jan 8, 2019

    Last edited by PAF; 08-18-2019 at 12:31 PM.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)

  27. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Are you seriously not understanding what whatever it takes means
    It's you who fails to, or rather refuses to, understand what Ron Paul meant by that. You keep trying to extrapolate from his use of those words that he must have advocated policies that he has always consistently and explicitly repudiated.

    Ron Paul never said, "We must do whatever nikcers thinks is necessary to secure our borders."

    We need to let Ron Paul in his own words explain what he meant by that. You don't get to put your own words in his mouth.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    It's you who fails to, or rather refuses to, understand what Ron Paul meant by that. You keep trying to extrapolate from his use of those words that he must have advocated policies that he has always consistently and explicitly repudiated.

    Ron Paul never said, "We must do whatever nikcers thinks is necessary to secure our borders."

    We need to let Ron Paul in his own words explain what he meant by that. You don't get to put your own words in his mouth.
    no, specifically "Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals." It doesn't say nickers at all.

  30. #146
    whatever it takes (uncountable)

    (idiomatic, sometimes euphemistic for improper behavior) Anything, including measures which may be extreme or wrongful, that is required to achieve an objective.

  31. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    It doesn't say nickers at all.
    Exactly.

    And yet somehow you keep trying to twist it into meaning whatever it is you want it to mean, rather than letting Ron Paul's own explanations of his positions speak for themselves.

  32. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Exactly.

    And yet somehow you keep trying to twist it into meaning whatever it is you want it to mean, rather than letting Ron Paul's own explanations of his positions speak for themselves.
    No i am just saying that Trump is doing whatever it takes to physically secure the border. He has been the first president to actually do something about this problem.

  33. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    No i am just saying that Trump is doing whatever it takes to physically secure the border. He has been the first president to actually do something about this problem.
    We get that you think that. Just don't pretend that the things Trump's doing that make you think that are things Ron Paul supports or try to twist his "whatever it takes" line into support of policies he has always repudiated.

  34. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    We get that you think that. Just don't pretend that the things Trump's doing that make you think that are things Ron Paul supports or try to twist his "whatever it takes" line into support of policies he has always repudiated.
    He doesn't speak in policies he speaks in philosophies. You are the one twisting Ron Paul's words to mean what you want it to mean.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Immigration: Site Issue Evaluation: Ron Paul's border / immigration position
    By Bryan in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 09-06-2016, 03:48 PM
  2. TRUMP POSITION: Immigration Reform
    By David Sadler in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 08-17-2015, 11:44 AM
  3. Walker Not Being Truthful on Immigration Position
    By AuH20 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 09:26 AM
  4. Obama's Position on Marijuana in November 2007
    By torchbearer in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 03:50 PM
  5. Issue: Immigration: 2007 Immigration Bill
    By RonPaul4President in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 07:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •