Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FTL_Ian]

He advocates military tribunals against brown people and border security to keep brown people out.  I haven't heard him advocate a Canadian border fence.

Maybe he doesn't hate brown people, but is just pandering to those who hate brown people, how about that?

Anyway, the guy is just another republican.

[Stoker]

He advocates military tribunals against brown people and border security to keep brown people out.  I haven't heard him advocate a Canadian border fence.

Maybe he doesn't hate brown people, but is just pandering to those who hate brown people, how about that?

Anyway, the guy is just another republican.

Now, most of that I can agree with . I am certain he has voted against this in the past, and recently(last year or so) on Alex Jones he got into a quibble with AJ about this very thing as AJ advocates a Militarized Border fence- RP does not.  I am completely against "border fences", not because there aren't some people who should be kept out, but rather that I am quite aware that fences also are used to keep people in- and that means ALL of us. Putting up a fence will also not do anything about why people- particularly the ones that actually are a problem, meaning those that are cashing in on the morally corrupt policy of making things that people want illegal- are entering the country and are dangerous 100% because of this policy. Not to mention the fact that the very Government that makes these laws to divide our society by creating an "us and them" mentality and weaken it by locking up completely innocent (morally) victims of this tyranny also has our Military protecting poppy fields in Afghanistan (and probably helping to ship it here and to Europe) and also shipping in tons of Cocaine (Proven fact). 

Keep in mind that Ron & Rand Paul both advocate changing the corrupt policies relating to Drug Laws, and that is a check in the "Pros" column for them in my book.

  I am curious about the claim that either Rand or Ron advocate using "military tribunals against brown people". Do you mean that he/they are advocating this to be specifically targeted at 'brown people", or that he/they support the concept of "military tribunals" in general? If this is indeed true , and not a whole lot about politicians surprises me anymore, could you please direct me to where you got that information?

[freedomroad]

Do you mean that he/they are advocating this to be specifically targeted at 'brown people", or that he/they support the concept of "military tribunals" in general? I

In general.  Ian just likes to say brown people.  It seems a bit more of a macho flash, welcomes less people to be like-minded and is more off-putting to people in general.

[Argentum]

He advocates military tribunals against brown people and border security to keep brown people out.  I haven't heard him advocate a Canadian border fence.

Maybe he doesn't hate brown people, but is just pandering to those who hate brown people, how about that?

Anyway, the guy is just another republican.

Being for military tribunals is wrong but not necessarily racist.  Same for border security.  If we had a similar "problem" on the northern border and Rand Paul only called for a fence on the southern  border, then I would say you had a point.  

And how do you know what is the motivation for those who do want immigration restrictions?  I think it is wrong to tar the whole anti-immirgration movement with a racist brush.  Ther are many non-racist, but illegitimate, reasons for opposing free migration.  Unless someone explicitly expresses racist reasons, libertarians should refrain from mentioning race.  It's wrong and as well as being strategically a bad move if we are trying to win people over to our side.

For the record, I am not a Rand Paul supporter.  As an anarchist, I would support a principled minarchist but Rand supports too much gov't or my taste.

[Argentum]

Do you mean that he/they are advocating this to be specifically targeted at 'brown people", or that he/they support the concept of "military tribunals" in general? I

In general.  Ian just likes to say brown people.  It seems a bit more of a macho flash, welcomes less people to be like-minded and is more off-putting to people in general.

I agree.  The "hating brown people" quip is something I think libertarians shouldn't use.  There are plenty of people who support anti-liberty policies but who are not motivated by racial concerns.  Using the quip is accusatory and makes us sound like the typical PC liberal.

[Ed]

Referring to them as brown people means that's what you see them as - brown people - as opposed to illegal immigrants (or terrorists for the war thing).

I feel that having Mexicans and other South Americans (it's not just Mexicans anymore - two of the laborers I've been hiring recently turned out to be Peruvian) as our clostest neighbors is at least better than fucking commie Europeans. In Mexico and South America they at least have some freedom-oriented-glorified cowboy culture, and they've got some cojones on the whole. Europeans on the other hand...

[FreedomFred]

Referring to them as brown people means that's what you see them as - brown people - as opposed to illegal immigrants (or terrorists for the war thing).

I feel that having Mexicans and other South Americans (it's not just Mexicans anymore - two of the laborers I've been hiring recently turned out to be Peruvian) as our clostest neighbors is at least better than fucking commie Europeans. In Mexico and South America they at least have some freedom-oriented-glorified cowboy culture, and they've got some cojones on the whole. Europeans on the other hand...

I dunno. Spain has had a history of hard-nose anarchism -- which would've worked if the despot Franco hadn't killed most of them off!!!!

[Stoker]

I was pretty sure about Ron Paul and Rand Pauls' (their positions on most issues are nearly identical) position on the "border fence" when I wrote that last Post, so, I decided to check it out.

Here is what I found :

Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior
Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language?

A: Well, it’s practical because we can all understand each other. I sometimes think that those who attack bilingualism sometimes are jealous, & we feel inferior, because we’re not capable. But we should have one language. But we, as federal officials, as a congressman or a president, we only have authority over the federal government. So I think all federal things should be in English. But when it comes to bilingualism in schools or the states, under our Constitution, it really is permissible. And the states can decide that. But under the conditions that we have today, I think it is good and proper to have one language, which would be English, for all legal matters at the national level. But this doesn’t preclude bilingualism in private use or in education or in local government.
Source: 2007 Republican primary debate on Univision Dec 9, 2007

No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals
Q: Is it even practical to try to send 12 million illegal immigrants all home?

A: I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it’s pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn’t be rewarded. And that would be the case.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state
I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn’t be rewarded. That means you don’t give them citizenship. You can’t solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn’t be a threat to us.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important
Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?

PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

So, it appears that he actually did vote for a bill of which part included funding for part of a fence with Mexico. He does oppose the complete closure and Militarization of the border however and advocates fixing the causes for the flood over the border instead , to be fair I think his stance on limiting border enforcement to something less than total closure is because of the cost, otherwise he might be for it.He did vote against other bills that had included provisions for a border fence previously, but again, I think that was because of a lack of funding. Also note some of these questions about immigration issues listed were with Univision- a Spanish language television Network- not many Politicians - particularly Republican ones, have the respect for "brown people" to do that.

Here is the link for "On The Issues" that has theissues information for pretty much all US Politicians  and is very well made. Bookmark this one.
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

[MengerFan]

Ther are many non-racist, but illegitimate, reasons for opposing free migration.

I haven't heard any non-racist reasons for opposing people moving, except those that are just a cover for the underlying racism.

For example, you often hear "they're getting welfare", but you never hear these same people promote taking the born-here welfare recipients and kicking them across the border.

You hear "they're taking our jerbs", but these folks never talk about preventing the born-on-this-side folks from procreating.

Maybe you could call it born-here-ism rather than racism. but it sure doesn't seem any different to me.

[FreedomFred]

Humans are so silly. 

[Stoker]

 Here is Ron Pauls vote to NOT Militarize the border:

                                 

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.
Amendment to set up a task force on counter-terrorism and drug interdiction and allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders.
Bill HR 2586 ; vote number 2001-356 on Sep 25, 2001

And keep in mind, he still had the integrity to vote NO on this just days after 9/11 when dozens of unconstitutional and tyrannical "laws" were being slid through Congress.

A few comments on Ron Pauls' Drug Policy stance:

War on drugs is out of control; revert control to states
Q: In your 1988 campaign you said, “All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults.” Is that still your position?

A: Yeah. It’s sort of like alcohol. Alcohol’s a deadly drug, kills more people than anything else. And today the absurdity on this war on drugs has just been horrible. Now the federal government takes over and overrules states where state laws permit medicinal marijuana 1 for people dying of cancer. The federal government goes in and arrests these people, put them in prison with mandatory sentences. This war on drugs is totally out of control. If you want to regulate cigarettes and alcohol and drugs, it should be at the state level. That’s where I stand on it. The federal government has no prerogatives on this.

Q: But you would decriminalize it?

A: I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007

Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly
Q: If you are elected president in 2008, what positive and significant legacy, if any, will you leave for Black Americans?

A: I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of Blacks and whites and everybody equally because we’re all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement. And also, I think that if you’re going to have prosperity, it serves everybody. And if this is done by emphasizing property rights and freedom of the individuals, making sure that the powerful special interests don’t control Washington, that the military industrial complex doesn’t suck away all the wealth of the country, and then we would have prosperity.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs
Q: What policy would you support to guarantee young Black and Latino men a fairer equal justice system?

A: A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs. For instance, Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change. We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn’t working. We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn’t work. Prohibition on drugs doesn’t work. So we need to come to our senses. And, absolutely, it’s a disease. We don’t treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007 

I don't see any enmity towards "brown people" anywhere here, as a matter of fact he is one of the few people in Washington that actually says the way "minorities" are treated by the government and country in general is atrocious.

Here is the link to a breakdown on his Pro-Libertarian stance about Americas Drug Policies:http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

[creaganlios]

Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior
Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language?

A: Well, it’s practical because we can all understand each other. I sometimes think that those who attack bilingualism sometimes are jealous, & we feel inferior, because we’re not capable. But we should have one language. But we, as federal officials, as a congressman or a president, we only have authority over the federal government. So I think all federal things should be in English. ....I think it is good and proper to have one language, which would be English, for all legal matters at the national level.

I wonder of that goes for Federal regulation in Puerto Rico.  Or on the Dine, Inuit, Native Hawaiian, and Lakhota Reservations.   And I wonder how his rationale would apply in Switzerland or Belgium.

[Dreepa]

Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior
Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language?

A: Well, it’s practical because we can all understand each other. I sometimes think that those who attack bilingualism sometimes are jealous, & we feel inferior, because we’re not capable. But we should have one language. But we, as federal officials, as a congressman or a president, we only have authority over the federal government. So I think all federal things should be in English. ....I think it is good and proper to have one language, which would be English, for all legal matters at the national level.

I wonder of that goes for Federal regulation in Puerto Rico.  Or on the Dine, Inuit, Native Hawaiian, and Lakhota Reservations.   And I wonder how his rationale would apply in Switzerland or Belgium.

most americans are too lazy to learn another language... and we aren't Switerland or Belgium..

it would also save money so stuff isn't printed in lots of other languages

[freedomroad]

I was pretty sure about Ron Paul and Rand Pauls' (their positions on most issues are nearly identical) position on the "border fence" when I wrote that last Post, so, I decided to check it out.

Here is what I found :

Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior
Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language?

Please don't post many words with such large text.  It is rude.

[creaganlios]

most americans are too lazy to learn another language... and we aren't Switerland or Belgium..  it would also save money so stuff isn't printed in lots of other languages 

The point about a place like Switzerland is that it is NOT necessary for a nation to speak ONE language.

And the general Laziness of most Americans (and the failure of schools to prepare students for a Global Trade Economy) should not be an excuse to impose a national language by fiat.

 Considering Spanish was spoken in many parts of America before the first English-speaking settlers arrived....perhaps Spanish should be the 'offical' language of New Mexico or Texas or Arizona.  And regardless, it will ALWAYS be necessary to translate federal documents into SPanish due to our colonization of Puerto Rico...

You're too lazy to learn Spanish?  You lose out on the growing Hispanic market.  As you should

Tant pis pour vous.  Quel dommage.