In what way do you DISAGREE with Ron Paul?

I think Dr. Paul could step up his rhetoric a little to reflect growing confidence in the campaign and his ability to win.

Subscribe to The Paulunteer - Grassroots Newsletter
Only one e-mail is sent per day.

Visit The Paulunteer Website

LAME THREAD. DON'T 'COME TO THE DARK SIDE'!
THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost

There is no silver bullet on this issue. Unfortunatelly many, and most of those wielding influence in the debate, do not want a change in the status quo. It is an industry unto itself. For the leaders in the pro-life and pro-choice movements it is a career, a path to easy donations, money, etc- they like it the way it is, and desire the mess to continue as an untractable emotional flash point. Because many of the people on both sides of this thing are certifiable there is no solution (politicians and pat robertsons of the world while not crazy are just unbelievably sleazy). In fact the entire argument is a red herring of sorts, a symptomatic distraction from the real problems around us.

RP offers the only sensible approach: local decisions to capture the overriding sense of the community. If you don't like it in Alabama move to California, or vice versa.

I introduced two people to Dr. Paul yesterday and already, one today.
Keep it up.

Why is "disagree" capitalized?! People really need to pay attention to marker words that actually turn off people and turn them away. This is bad post and should be dealt with appropriately. Newcomers come here and see the amount of people disagreeing with Dr. Paul, this will definitely turn them off.

Why can't it say something like "The insignificant disagreements that bring us together"

First impressions are always key and generally it is the younger population that are looking at these forums.

;-)

with Ron Paul here but understand his approach. Dr. Paul understands the second amendment was put forth to give us the ability to fight our government when they come down on the people but on the other hand he and most Paul supporters say we should bring about revolution with peace. What gives.

I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion. I'm pro-choice, as far as the first trimester is concerned. I have grave concerns about making women carry unwanted children to term, regardless of my worries about ending a life. I have to wonder which is worse and would not force an unwanted pregnancy on anyone.

I disagree with Ron Paul for not putting Internet Regulation more front and center in his campaign.

But I hope that is changing.

As an American who lives in Europe, I have been shocked by the way the US Congress audaciously passes laws (like IMBRA) that assume jurisdiction over me when I am not even there anymore.

They assume that the Internet allows them to reach across the oceans better.

I have often said that it is a mistake to concentrate on being anti-war. RP already has the members of that crowd that can be pulled away from the Dems.

To win the Republican nomination, Dr. Paul is going to have to win over the pro-war folks by talking past that issue. Their minds cannot be changed on the war. Mine wasn't. I am still as proud of Operation Iraqi Freedom as ever and I am glad about the good news coming out of Iraq (see www.rightbias.com).

It is not stopping me from pushing hard for RP to win New Hampshire (or more likely, to come in 3rd) and at least force the Republicans to make Libertarian thinkers the core of their party (or else I will vote for RP as an independent in the general election and possibly throw the election to Hitlery).

It would be really cool if Giuliani (who is most likely to take California and New York and New Jersey on Tsunami Tuesday in early February) noticed around March that he was polling in a 3 way race behind Hitlery because of a huge 7% national support for RP as a hypothetical 3rd Party candidate.

Around that time, Paul's ideas would be adopted more and more by the frontrunner's campaign. Giuliani would not adopt the abolishment of the Fed or the Dept of Education probably...but he would look into what Internet Regulation laws he wants to announce he is totally against.

Giuliani would be smart, at that point, to also announce that he would appoint someone like Posner, Easterbook or Kazinski to the Supreme Court if he were elected. Those are the best libertarian federal judges in the USA.

It would be a dream come true to see RP go straight to the top, but I don't think the Bilderberg people are going to allow that to happen.

The downward drive of the wages is not a good thing for the worker. The corporations really don't seem interested in passing on their savings when they outsource to China or hire illegals. Most illegals use social services, so it isn't as though any money is saved. For the illegal family in America, the amount they pay into the system through taxes is dwarfed by what they take out. two to one.

My question is:

1, if it is immoral to deny someone from coming here, should we allow everyone?

2, Assimilation into the American culture is, to me, an important issue. In many parts of the country the Spanish language is prominent. Spanish is no longer a foreign language. I can hear it in town on any given day, or on my local (Central Oregon) Mexican radio or tv station. Because I cannot understand this language, it is difficult to communicate. For the millions of other American's who do not speak Spanish, and the millions of people who do not speak English, is this not dangerous? Or is it better for American unity to have two main languages?

3, My final question is, if American prosperity which attracts people from other countries (primarily from south of our border) is threatened, should it be protected? I assert it is being threatened. I was in construction and saw the drop in wages before my eyes.

I will end with this statement:
The blame for our immigration chaos does not lie with the alien, but with our leaders. On this matter I agree with Ron Paul. If we eliminate government hand outs, there would not be a problem, and hardly as much attraction.

It took me awhile for the environmental issue to sink in, but after a lot of thought it makes better sense than anything (carbon tax). Free market plus property rights throw in the power of the people to protest. What more do you need for a cleaner environment. Wind, electric and solar power would rise faster then most of us could keep up with. Thanks to the FREE market. Should a major company continue to pollute from one of their power plants or factories a simple boycott and protest could solve that.

I’ve seen this around many times but it’s true and I owe a dept of gratitude to Dr. Paul and all of his supporters.
Thank you Dr. Paul for curing my apathy

1. I'm not a big fan of guns.
2. I rather like international organizations.
3. I think we should aid our allies militarily if they ask for our help. Doesn't have to be a ground invasion but we can sell them arms and provide logistical support.
4. I don't like the idea of returning to the gold standard.

Also, I'm unsure about his position on LEGAL immigration. I take the standard libertarian approach: Dismantle the welfare state and allow open immigration.

Finally, I like the idea of federalism but it's not such a big selling point for me. But it's one of Paul's central tenets. For me, ideally the federal government would establish programs which states can voluntarily opt into. The cost of the programs would be borne entirely by member states.

What's sad is that despite all this, he's still FAR better than the rest. He's the only "acceptable" candidate for me.

I've stated just about all I can about the complete immorality of creating arbitrary rules to deny access to this country those unfortunate souls who hadn't the luck of being born here. I will sum up here my reasons. Incredibly, not a single poster has addressed any of these arguments. I challenge anyone to answer any one of these questions, but especially numbers 4 ,5, or 6. And please note my simple solution to this whole "problem" in number 7.

1. We complain when illegals come here to get on the "dole", but then we seek to punish any business that would hire them. This makes absolutely no sense. If we don't want them on the dole, then why don't we let them work?

2. The number of jobs are not finite. Illegals do not take jobs from us. Jobs are constantly being created by the hundreds of thousands every year.

3. To the extent that they lower wages, this has an enormous positive effect on the economy by lowering inflation - 75% to 80% of the cost of business is labor cost. If this cost is lowered, then the savings are passed on to the customer - that's YOU.

4. To anyone who supports limits on immigration - Would you have supported FDR's policy, during World War II, of turning away Jews seeking asylum from Hitler's exterminators? This is a very simple question. I've asked it in 5 different posts, yet not a single poster has given a straight answer. Yes or no.

5. A follow up question to the last question would be - Would you deny immigration rights to refugees from Darfur, Bosnia, Somalia or any other war-torn country? Or would you send them back to certain death because they would "clog traffic"?

6. If you favor abolishing birthright citizenship, do you realize that we would ALL need to apply for citizenship? What would the test be? How many would be accepted? Your own children would no longer be automatic citizens of the US. Does this not scare anyone? It doesn't take an Einstein to see that these rules, no longer restricted by the iron fist of the Constitution, would be subject to the political whims of whomever happens to be in power at the time. Would it be that hard to imagine a Hillary type assuming power, then creating an citizenship policy whereby only those that demonstrate an unwavering allegiance to the state would be accepted as US citizens? Would it not be the ultimate irony that supporters of Ron Paul could be the first citizens to fail this citizenship test?

7. The system is the problem, not the immigrant. Focus on attacking the cause of the problem, not the symptom. Abolish the welfare state and the problem disappears. Attack the symptom and the problem keeps coming back. Immigrants are only burdens to us to the extent that our system allows them to be. A simple policy to end the problem of all immigration, legal or illegal, would be to deny any welfare state benefits to any immigrant until they have lived here for 2 years. No more hand wringing on which immigrants to allow and which to send away. Only productive ones will come with a policy such as this. And this would be a simple policy to enact. Much easier then attempting to abolish the welfare state for all Americans.

8. Building a wall and monitoring it would be an enormously expensive task and it would prove fruitless to preventing illegal immigration, much the same way that enacting gun control has proven fruitless in disarming criminals. These policies only serve to make things difficult for the law abiding.

9. No immigration policy could ever hope to be fair to all immigrants. Being that it would be a political document, it would undoubtedly serve only those immigrants favored by the party in power.

10. All these arguments are actually irrelevant. The bottom line is that it is simply immoral to deny another human being the right to seek a better life by restricting his access to “our” country. Think about it - what exactly makes it “our” country anyway? Because we were BORN HERE? But I thought we were doing away with birthright citizenship. If that were to become the case, then what would make it our country anymore than anyone elses? Without the policy of birthright citizenship, unless you actually purchased the land, how would it be your country whatsoever?

Ron Paul is nearly perfect, from my perspective.

I'd consider myself a hardcore libertarian, and the Libertarian Party would be ideal for me, except I am utterly opposed to their immigration platform (which is essentially, "people are free to go where they please"). I am all about hardcore enforcement of our borders, because without a definable border there is nothing to point to and say "this is America." Strong borders also tie in with the whole "rights are derived from property" stance of the LP. Honestly, their immigration platform has always seemed nonsensical to me, considering their other positions.

Ron Paul's primary solution to illegal immigration is to stop the gravy train, and I agree that this will be the most effective solution, but he's also in favor of border enforcement.

The only disagreement I have with the private property platform, is that I do believe we need at least *some* public lands for practical purposes. I'd include actual border lands in this, because a private owner might decide to allow illegals to enter, and that affects everyone.

The best way to illustrate the need for a certain amount of shared resources, is to look at the plot of every Western movie from the 1950s: Evil cattle baron buys up all the land, blocks access to the only water source in the area, smalltime ranchers revolt, climaxing in a shootout on Main Street.

So, you can't just allow a Bill Gates to buy up all the resources. But as long as a reasonable amount are set aside for public use, I have no problem with him buying the rest.

bump

I was talking with a college and introducing him to the Dr. today and he asked me what he thought of the economy. I know Paul stands for free enterprise but when I told my buddy he said, "but what about monopoly men, you need SOME rules right?" From what I got in Paul's message, freedom is all or nothing. But I could not quite explain this to my friend and I felt quite dumb not understanding, seeing that I support him so passionately. How can I explain to my friend Dr. Paul's stand on the free market and keeping the little people in the game against big companies? I've heard him say he wouldn't mind a maximum wage...does that mean minimum regulation of the economy? Someone please help, this is the ONLY issue I don't fully understand on how it would work if implemented. Thanks guys! I was going to ask about the environment too but you guys cleared that up quick! I agree abortion is a non-issue that divides.

This is a counter to those in this discussion who are against Dr. Paul's position on illegal immigration.

We can't afford all this cheap labor! It is no exaggeration to say that it will be the death of our country if we do not stop it.

Check out your bucks flyin' out the window to Mexico...

http://www.immigrationcou...

http://numbersusa.com/ind...

I was a lifelong, dyed-in-the-wool flaming liberal*, baby, until I saw the famed Numbers USA video, "Immigration Gumballs". Now I'm a flaming Independent and LOVE Paul and Tancredo!

*I just temporarily switched to Republican...gasp...to chose Ron as the GOP candidate.

I've done additional exhaustive research on the subject and now I ONLY vote for candidates who are against ANY form of AMNESTY. We have to secure the border NOW....this is just as important as getting out of Iraq.

Numbers USA video, "Immigration Gumballs". MUST SEE...almost 3 million views!!
http://video.google.com/v...

trouble viewing? check out....

http://video.google.com/v...

This is where the good Doctor and I disagree. I'm all for capital punishment. In fact, I'm for bringing back public executions. I also realize that this is a state issue.

His "radical" (ie, constitutional) stands scare a lot of people, and he needs to reassure those who can't think outside the ballot box that not only would his application of principles be gradual, but most of what he advocates could not possibly be fulfilled even in eight years. The important point is that it would start us moving in a better direction. I think that should be his message -- "Help me start us moving in a better direction." That captures the disgruntled and reassures the timid. He has to convince people that he will not do us harm with radical surgery. That is the fear among moderates. And it is a valid concern.

My major disagreements with libertarians in general, and thus also with Ron Paul, are on environmental issues.

Ron Paul believes all land should be privately owned. I *like* our national parks, national forests, and wilderness areas. I know that if they were sold to the highest bidder they'd be chopped up into subdivisions.

Also, most environmental problems involve large economic externalities (of the negative sort). Because libertarian philosophy can not deal with externalities in any satisfactory way libertarians generally refuse to acknowledge their very existence. Global warming is just one example (although probably the biggest one) of a negative economic externality. Yes, I've seen the video on the Global Warming "Hoax". But I don't make up my mind about issues on the basis of one Google video. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening, will get much worse, and is now caused primarily by human activity. Because effective actions to prevent global warming will require such things as imposing carbon taxes I am certain Paul will do nothing about it (except that he will at least stop fighting wars for oil).

My ideal candidate would have former Colorado governor Dick Lamm's views on immigration and the environment and Ron Paul's views on everything else. But Dick Lamm isn't running, so I've gone with "everything else" -- Ron Paul.