posted
At first I just thought he was kind on nutty. I mean, it's not uncommon for people to fail to grasp that gold is as arbitrary a currency as anything else.
The anti Iraq war thing, eh. I can certainly understand that a lot of people feel that way, even if I feel it makes them disloyal to the Republican party.
But his position on immigration, that birthright citizenship should be abolished, strikes me as absurdly jingoistic. I get that it is unfair to consider citizenship for people here illegally when folks are waiting in line to get here legally, but people who try to immigrate legally are subjected to a "guilty until proven innocent" program. It's not as though we have a fair and workable system for allowing people to immigrate, and that's wrong for a number of reasons.
1. We stole this land to begin with.
2. We need labor because of our demographic situation (baby boomers, baby bust, Social Security crisis).
3. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, whatever that means.
Ron Paul's vision of an isolated America seems to me the opposite of what Lincoln fought to preserve.
Sure he's pro-life, but I have come to see that I am not really a one issue voter. I would probably vote for Paul over Clinton, but that's about it.
quote:The anti Iraq war thing, eh. I can certainly understand that a lot of people feel that way, even if I feel it makes them disloyal to the Republican party.
posted
I prefer candidates that are loyal to the American people and to doing the right thing rather than to a political party.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having a particular stance on any issue solely because you're being loyal to a political party is ridiculous.
I'm not surprised though, seeing as how so many people are so fiercely Republican or Democrat that they forget to think for themselves. Tow the party line, people!
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find him interesting. I also find, when I hear him talk, that it seems that he's speaking honestly. I may not agree with him on any or most of his positions, but I have the feeling that these are his actual opinions.
In a world where most politicians (on both sides) seem to be trying to take the positions that will get them elected, it's nice to see someone who is just being who he is.
I could, of course, be wrong.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
MORE people? Given that the vast majority of people I know hate him now, I don't get what you're after.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll bluntly say I think his immigration stance is un-American.
quote:I prefer candidates that are loyal to the American people and to doing the right thing rather than to a political party.
So what is a political party for? We better figure out what it means to be loyal because the Democrats certainly know.
For my part, I care about the war mainly due to family ties of various sorts. But I don't really expect Ron Paul to care about my family.
In the past, I've happily voted for any third party, even where I didn't really agree, just because I hated the two party system.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But on the subject of Ron Paul... Since I have some friends who kind of like him, I checked out his website. I like some of his policies, but I also was surprised that he suggested that the children of illegal immigrants who are born here shouldn't be U.S. citizens. Sorry, I don't think illegals should be here either, but the time to solve the problem is BEFORE they have children. If you're born here, you're a citizen here. It's too late to do anything about it. (Not that I think there's any reason to let the parents stay simply because the minor children are citizens. Send them all home, and when the minor children reach 18 or find a citizen to live with before they're 18, they can come back free and clear.)
About the gold standard. While I see your point about how basing our money on gold could be considered arbitrary--I don't think basing it on paper (AKA--basing it on nothing) is the same thing as choosing some other material. The point is to base it on something precious which other countries would see value in. Paper is valueless in itself as currency. Gold, silver, and certain other gems and metals have value as currency because of their demand worldwide. At least that's how I see it--paper money should represent harder currency, because it is valueless in and of itself. I couldn't find what Ron Paul says about gold and money, though, so if the debate isn't over whether or not we should go back to a Gold Standard, then what I said is probably pretty irrelevant.
I'm okay with the immigration system being evaluated and revamped as needed. That makes sense.
I'm really tired of the "we stole this land to begin with" argument. Go back far enough and you could probably say that about every country that exists today. I think Spike put it best: "I just can't take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about the bloody Indians! You won! Alright? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did and he's not going around saying "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world is not people making friends - you had better weapons and you massacred them. End of story."
(I realize you're probably referring to the "theft" of the land from Mexico, too, but I think the quote still applies.)
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our currency is not based on paper, it is represented by paper. It is based on the full faith and credit of the US gov't, which basically means it will continue to be valuable because the US gov't won't let people in the US stop taking it for certain sorts of transactions. This is a credible backing.
"as needed". There is no need to remove the right to citizenship from people born here. If it is a problem, it is a small one, and generations of perpetual non-citizenship has proven to be a large problem in many other countries around the world.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first time I saw him was when he appeared on Leno, and I thought most of his points were rather foolish. When he used a metaphor of pulling the troops out of Iraq being comparable to stopping surgery on someone who didn't need it then stopping, I couldn't imagine anything other than him just pulling out on a patient while he was still cut open and bleeding.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually don't know if we should go back to a gold-backed currency. While I think it was a good idea to begin with and I have my doubts about whether or not we should have ever gone away from that, I think that perhaps that ship has sailed and there may be no practical way to go back. However, what I was saying was just meant to make the point that people who do believe in a gold standard aren't just nuts who don't get it, and shouldn't be dismissed as such.
About sending them all home--well, I think that could be accomplished in several ways--I can think of two. 1. Massive deportations back to their country of origin, and 2. making it pointless to stay in an illegal capacity. Personally, I prefer number 2, where the laws regarding hiring illegal immigrants are enforced and changed, if necessary, to give them some teeth.
On a somewhat related note, I'd also like to see Mexico make some changes to their government and country so that their citizens actually want to stay and are able to stay. That's their domain, though, and it's not up to America to accept their citizens (at least not illegally) to help fix their problems. We have our own poor to take care of.
Regarding a possible labor shortage of legal workers... I'd like to see what happens when businesses can only hire legal workers. If there are then massive vacancies, then is the time to make changes to fix the problem. If that means letting in more legal immigrants to fill those vacancies, then that's fine.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: "as needed". There is no need to remove the right to citizenship from people born here. If it is a problem, it is a small one, and generations of perpetual non-citizenship has proven to be a large problem in many other countries around the world.
Are you responding to me here? I never said that I thought that there's a need to remove or deny citizenship of people born here. I said quite the opposite, in fact. My comment which I ended with "as needed" was about changing the legal immigration system to let more workers in--as needed. This would include all classes of workers--as needed.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Short answer: I suspect that a non-trivial number of the people that would hate Ron Paul have not even heard of him. A fair number of people that have heard about him probably do not know enough about him aside from being "that wacky hopeless candidate" to hate him.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand the republican animosity or the dismissive attitudes towards Ron Paul, but I am glad Pooka asked why don't more people hate him.
First off, hate is a strong word. Why would you hate him? Disagree...sure. Ridicule...to each their own. Hate?...wow.
I like his fiscal policy. Everything is about lowering/abolishing taxes while never voting for an unbalanced budget. That sounds very republican to me, or have we become the party of big government and empty rhetoric? At least Paul has plans he throws into the public discourse.
About the gold standard. RON PAUL DOES NOT WANT TO GO BACK TO THE GOLD STANDARD. He saw problems with the gold standard in the last century. He wants to legalize competition of the dollar by taking taxes off of gold and allowing a competing gold backed currency that gives people the option of saving in Federal Reserve notes backed by confidence in our government or notes backed by gold.
The main point of a commodity backed currency isn't to keep an arbitrary value, it is to stop the government from printing money. The "one-two punch to the American people" that Paul talks about is government overspending on welfare and warfare, and the feds printing money to make up the difference (amount spent not accounted for in borrowing and taxes). He also doesn't like bailouts (by printing more money) to unsuccessful businesses.
quote: It is based on the full faith and credit of the US gov't, which basically means it will continue to be valuable because the US gov't won't let people in the US stop taking it for certain sorts of transactions. This is a credible backing.
This may be credible backing for Americans, but it is not credible for the world. We could have a destruction of a currency.
I agree that his immigration policies would push people under the radar, but at least he isn't for a fence or deportation. He just wants to remove incentives to come here illegally.
ON Iraq and Iran. Paul was right about Iraq. During the republican debates when everyone but Paul refused to take a tactical nuclear strike against Iran off the table, he said,
quote: We shouldn't be looking for the opportunity to attack them (Iran). They are at the present time, according to the IAEA cooperating.
After the IAEA said Iran halted their program 4 years ago, Bush was marching to the war drums and the other candidates were supporting him and getting caught up in fear. Only Ron Paul was looking at the data and presenting reality-- just like he did with Iraq.
Paul is a statesman who is well educated, guided by principals, works for the benefit of the people, and is consistent. He is the true dark horse. On Dec 16th, I will be donating $234.
I also like his support of civil liberties and openess in government.
posted
Hate is a strong word. It's just been floating around on the forum with respect to a couple of canditates this week, is all.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, if it's bothersome here, we should also be criticizing the Hillary thread. In any case, I am of the opinion that most people who dislike him don't know enough about him (or are misinformed). That's not to say they'd love him if they did more research. I can understand how a lot of people would disagree with Paul. I just think people should disagree with actual positions instead of what they think the other person stands for.
At the very least, he seems to me to be the Republican with the most integrity and the cleanest record running right now. I don't agree with him on everything, but what is starting to convince me to vote for him is that I find myself believing that if he tried policy changes that ended up not working, he'd see the mistake and correct it. That's not a kind of trust politicians win from me easily.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a perfectly credible backing for other people around the world. It isn't like, even if we had a gold-backed currency, we couldn't just decide to refuse an exchange with nationals of a country we didn't like (this happened quite a bit at times by certain countries struggling to maintain sufficient gold reserves).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only reasons I hate a candidate is if they are duplicitous and scummy.
Ron Paul is honest and straightforward. I could disagree on a billion billion billion principles of his and he still couldn't make me hate him. Sorry!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I changed the title, because I don't literally hate the man, nor do I think anyone else should.
Though in that context, I don't know if I would say I actually hate anybody, since I'm a repressed and neurotic female.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of all of the candidates I think I find Kucinich and Paul the most respectable because they actually vote strictly by their beliefs. I also respect Obama though I haven't actually looked at his voting record so my opinion of him is probably heavily influenced by the media.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kucinich turned me off when he said (I'm paraphrasing) that under his administration there would be no more first strikes. Excuse me? You don't tell your enemies that you're not going to attack them first!
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kucinich lost me when he more or less said that he'd never use the military. Now, I'm not a warhawk, but come on, the US doesn't have to be provocative, but in this day and age, it can't afford to take a tool like that out of play.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Kucinich lost me when he more or less said that he'd never use the military. Now, I'm not a warhawk, but come on, the US doesn't have to be provocative, but in this day and age, it can't afford to take a tool like that out of play.
He said "War must truly become the last desperate measure of self defense, not the handy policy tool it is now used for."
What sort of situations do you have in mind where you would use the military but you think that Kucinich would not?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Paul is a constitutionalist. We SHOULD get rid of birthright citizenship. They are called anchor babies. A pregnant woman crosses the border, has the baby, then gets to stay in the US because her baby is an American.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Kucinich lost me when he more or less said that he'd never use the military. Now, I'm not a warhawk, but come on, the US doesn't have to be provocative, but in this day and age, it can't afford to take a tool like that out of play.
He said "War must truly become the last desperate measure of self defense, not the handy policy tool it is now used for."
What sort of situations do you have in mind where you would use the military but you think that Kucinich would not?
It's not always war. There's a hell of a lot that comes in between nothing and war, and from the rhetoric I've heard him use, he wouldn't use it until enemy troops were actually on US soil. Like it or not, a military IS a tool of policy, it just shouldn't be used nearly so cavalierly as it is now.
I don't trust him to keep us safe.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was in the military you know. Just because he doesn't want America policing the world, it doesn't mean he wouldn't try to prevent possible attacks.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't agree with him. I think he's TOO much of a dove. I'd like the next president to toe the line between the two extremes, and I see Cheney on one side and him on the other.
posted
I am not really sure how so many people like him. Does anyone realize that he would like nothing more than to pull all funding for education, homeland security, and the department of energy? He even said so in the last debate. I suppose I can see people feeling that the department of homeland security and the department of energy are a waste (even though I do not see it at all), but the department of education? Do we really need less money going to our schools here? There are far too many schools in America that are not getting enough funds. Kids are not obtaining the education they need in many areas. How does one want to pull funding for education when that is one place our money should be going?
However, I do give it to his campaign staff for managing to get signs up at every turn around here. He is the only candidate that I ever see being promoted through signs here.
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do we really need less money going to our schools here?
I'm not convinced that this would result in less money for schools.
quote: There are far too many schools in America that are not getting enough funds. Kids are not obtaining the education they need in many areas. How does one want to pull funding for education when that is one place our money should be going?
This would totally derail the topic but not having enough money is really not an issue especially when the school district has a high number of free and reduced rate lunch students (low income, or however they qualify). Those schools qualify for millions and millions of dollars. How the Adminstration of those districts choose to squander their fortune is another matter.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Department of Education does much more harm than good. It never should have been a federal concern to begin with and I'm pretty sure that's why Dr. Paul wants it dead.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: Dr. Paul is a constitutionalist. We SHOULD get rid of birthright citizenship. They are called anchor babies. A pregnant woman crosses the border, has the baby, then gets to stay in the US because her baby is an American.
Does anybody know if this is true or not? A mother can stay in a country if her child is a citizen?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to wikipedia (accuracy questionable, I know):
quote:The term is used by those advocating immigration reduction to describe the process by which the child would become the "anchor" of a chain by which its family would receive benefits from social programs, and by which the parents themselves eventually would become lawful permanent residents or citizens of the United States.
The term "anchor babies" is also used to refer to children born to women who are legally in the U.S. on temporary visas (for example a visitor’s visa) when the child's birth is specifically intended[citation needed] to obtain citizenship for the child under US law; however, this is more precisely described as birth tourism.
U.S.-born children cannot, however, sponsor their parents for immigration to the United States until reaching adulthood, and illegal immigrant parents do not gain any additional legal rights based solely on the fact that they have had a child born in the U.S.
quote:A mother can stay in a country if her child is a citizen?
It is true that the baby born here is a citizen. (And kudos to Paul for recognizing that changing this would require a constitutional amendment. Too many of the people advocating the removal of birthright citizenship refuse to do this.)
A citizen cannot sponsor a relative until the citizen is an adult. Moreover, a removable alien does not become unremovable simply because that person is the parent of a citizen. The existence of a citizen child might be a factor in a hardship determination, but is by no means dispositive. Many people with citizen children are removed each year, though.
I find this generally appalling. While I do see the underlying policy rationale in eliminating the incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally to give birth, the current solution is forcing a U.S. citizen (the child) to either leave the country or give up his parents. The cost outweighs the benefits.
For those interested in the laws concerning this issue (these are all copyright-free):
8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) limits family sponsorship to "the children, spouses, and parents of a citizen of the United States, except that, in the case of parents, such citizens shall be at least 21 years of age."
8 U.S.C.A. § 1255 forbids adjustment of status from undocumented alien to permanent resident.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a personal note: I have a friend from Africa who had a baby here, and the baby of course was a citizen but they were trying very hard to deport the mother ... essentially saying that the mother could go back to Africa without her baby, or force the baby to leave her country in order to stay with her mother. It was an awful situation.
Fortunately there were extenuating (political) circumstances that allowed the mother to stay, but they weren't related to the baby. It seemed very unfair. Or maybe "unfair" isn't the right word, but it seemed ... wrong.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that I'm very sympathetic to that sort of situation. It shouldn't be surprise to a parent that a baby's citizenship due to birth place isn't automatically transferable to the parent.
If I were to have my baby in another country with the express purpose of giving my baby dual-citizenship, it would be an act that I would hope would benefit my child in the future, with her being able to choose her nationality when she comes of age. Whether one agrees with that idea or not, it is legal in many countries. I would not, however, try to take advantage of the situation myself to stay in the country.
I also don't see how it is so heartless to give a parent the choice of finding citizens to raise the baby in the new country or of taking the baby home to her home country until the baby is of legal age. The former option is, of course, not an attractive one, but the latter option is not a grievous miscarriage of justice. In fact, I think it is the preferable option.
My point is, it should not be a surprise that those are going to be your options if you come here and have your baby. If you hate it that much, pursue other methods to be legal residency here.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point is, it should not be a surprise that those are going to be your options if you come here and have your baby.
I'm looking at it from the baby's perspective: should we as a government force the baby to either separate from his parents or leave a country of which he is a citizen? The actions of his parents shouldn't affect his rights (in this case, the right of a citizen to remain within the territory of the nation and the right of a child to remain with his parents).
I don't think that abrogating one of those rights is the proper response to the wrongdoing of others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to go AFK for a while for work, but I'll be thinking on this. My gut reaction really is that it's just the way things are, and it's not so bad. The child gets citizenship which he can take advantage of when he is of age, which should be reward enough. Is it really so terrible to grow up in a country that is not the US? And it's not like the child would grow up where he is not a citizen. I would assume that the parents' citizenship would transfer automatically to their children.
He has both rights--his parents just have to choose one of them, at least until he is grown.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think some kind of dual citizenship arrangement should exist, particularly if the child's parents both are citizens of the same country. I had a child overseas and what we were told is that he could be forced to perform military service for Turkey when he grew up, and their suggestion was he stay clear of the country. It's unfortunately no longer an issue, since he is deceased, but looking back I'm absolutely boggled that we did not choke up the money to come back to the U.S. to have him.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO there's no real point in childhood citizenship. No point in citizenship until people are of an age with the right to vote.
Technically they may be citizens, but I don't see how that should differentiate a child's rights. The rights of children should be identical whether they have the label "citizen" or not.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it really so terrible to grow up in a country that is not the US?
I don't even reach that question in my analysis (which isn't to say it's wrong to ask the question or use it in your analysis).
My essential problem with it is not the child leaving the U.S. - I fully support the right of parents to take their children to a different country, with certain exceptions such as FGM.
Rather, my problem is that the child is deprived of the right to grow up in his country of birth as a response to the actions of another. There is a connection to a society established during childhood that is qualitatively different than one created during adulthood. Similarly, there is a connection to the full-time caregiver established during childhood that is qualitatively different than that which can be established via long-distance parenting. The child should not be forced to sacrifice one of these goods.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
You do unless you plan on being the aggressor (a bad thing for any civilized country).
But if you tell another nation that you won't strike first, doesn't that give them the freedom to build up their forces until they can inflict a decimating first strike against you? It seems to me you should tell an enemy nation that you have no desire to take over their land, but that if you determine that they're planning an attack on you, you will not rule out stopping them before they can do so.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I know you didn't address that question, but I was responding to what I feel is an underlying premise when some people make the argument that all people should be allowed to stay in the United States (because other countries are so terrible). I don't presume that you are in that group of people, but I do tend to respond as a whole when I write. Easier for my cluttered brain.
Regarding the right of a child to grow up with his parents, that right is often taken away because of the actions of said parents. The parents could be unfit or in jail or unable to care for the child. It's a sad situation, but the child had nothing to do with the circumstances in those instances either, yet he still has to live with the consequences.
I do agree that it's not the greatest situation that a child may be denied the right to either live in his country of birth or be denied living with his parents, but I would be hesitant to change the situation because of what I see as undesirable consequences. I don't want it to be that easy to get around citizenship laws--just have a baby and you can stay. It's a horrible reason to bring a child into the world, and it is not respecting our boundaries.
I suppose I might come across as heartless, but I disagree that is what I am. I am absolutely against people being here who are not legal residents of some sort. I absolutely believe they should be deported and denied the right to work here. However, I am NOT against a change in immigration policies that lets more lower-income workers come into this country as they are needed.
I do not believe in the idea that other countries are so horrible that it is our duty to let in anyone who wants to come here. If some poor people in Mexico have it so much worse than poor people in the US, then why isn't their government/charities/churches/etc. helping them? We're not the protectors of the world, and we're not the saviors of the world, either.
Personally, I think it's horribly unfair that women in France get 6 months to a year of paid maternity leave, while I get 12 weeks unpaid. I do not, however, think that gives me the right to move to France illegally to take advantage of their policies. (Although I don't think I could take advantage of it as a non-citizen, anyway.) If I don't like the family leave policies here, I should work to change them HERE. I understand that it's not practical to expect the poor of Mexico to have significant changes in their country's policies/politics, but they're not the only ones who could affect change there. Maybe there's even something the US could do.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
You do unless you plan on being the aggressor (a bad thing for any civilized country).
But if you tell another nation that you won't strike first, doesn't that give them the freedom to build up their forces until they can inflict a decimating first strike against you? It seems to me you should tell an enemy nation that you have no desire to take over their land, but that if you determine that they're planning an attack on you, you will not rule out stopping them before they can do so.
The first part of your post ignores other deterrents like international treaties and economic sanctions.
In response to the second part, I know it sounds snarky but it's meant seriously - that hasn't worked so well for us in the recent past.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The premise isn't usually that other countries are so terrible, but that people should be allowed to live where they want. As much as that can be facilitated within practical limits, given the weighing of other circumstances, it should be.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
