Ron Paul speaks sense. That is why he will never be supported by the two "parties" who have carved up the wealth of this group of people called the United States.
The Demonrats and Regurgitans want two things:
1. Everything you own or produce;
2. Never to have to get a real job.
We the Sheeple have lost control over "our" government decades, if not scores of years ago.
Ron Paul should have been President. He is qualified for the job and has more class than any of the Republicans I have seen so far! He is honest and he knows our Constitution and upholds it very well. I pray he runs for President 2012 he has my vote!
Ron Paul is too nationalist, but he's still more libertarian, a stronger Constitutionalist, a better fiscal conservative, and would make a better president by far than anybody else on that stage.
Don't get me wrong Mike, I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for Ron Paul. But he definitely comes across as more concerned about those human beings arbitrarily considered "Americans" than about universal liberty. Perhaps the most clear-cut example is migration policy. He favors more government controls on people entering the United States, on the nationalist grounds that this is "our" country and since "they" are not part of "us" it's okay to legally discriminate against "them."
Why is defending our borders LEAGALLY wrong?? We are more than happy to bring others into this country. As long as they enter legally. Globalization thinking will destroy this country.
Well, *my* borders delineate my personal space and possessions. So when you say "our" borders, I presume you really mean the borders of the entity called the United States. Conflating the personal with the national is one of the hallmarks of the nationalist paradigm. Why is it *legally* wrong to defend U.S. borders? It's unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution allows Congress to regulate *naturalization* (the process of becoming a citizen), not *immigration*, except for the importing of slaves.
@StarchildSF, it's called the Constitution of the United States, not the Constitution of humans. In the perfect world, your philosophy would be correct, but we still live in a world where humans are tribal by nature.
The U.S. government could, and should, police the borders, and limit the number of immigrants allowed into this country. Otherwise, the American culture will be replaced by the culture flooding in, as is happening in So-Cal and the SW.
Bryan - By this logic, the California government should also police California's borders and limit the number of immigrants allowed into this state, so that Californian culture won't be replaced by the culture of people from places like Texas and New York.
Why view our world through the eyes of nation-states, when national governments deriving their power and legitimacy from this system are responsible for the worst oppression in the world?
P.S. - I believe as the Declaration of Independence says, that (humans) are created equal (in the eyes of the law). Therefore the law should not violate these inalienable rights or put one group of people over another by discriminating on the basis of nationality or where a person was born, any more than by discriminating on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability status. As a libertarian my goal is not success for the United States -- my goal is universal freedom.
Wow the one I read doesn't need to use or have the word "human" in it. So that statement alone is indicative of your belief system and being concerened about the "universal freedom is exactly the problem. We ar a soverign country. Our founding fathers, I believe, weren't thinking about any other country or people except those in this country. I believe it is sad and unfortunate when people like yourself are not concerned about the success of the United States. God help this country.
I realize the Constitution doesn't say "human", that's why I put it in parenthesis. But if it did say "human beings" instead of "men", it would be a better document. Legal equality for women is important, don't you agree?
I consider myself a sovereign individual; so I do not recognize the U.S. government (or any other) as having sovereignty over me. Except for protecting life, liberty, and property, and arbitrating disputes, these entities called governments should stay out of our lives.
"Our founding fathers... weren't thinking about any other country or people except those in this country."
I agree, they were quite nationalist and mostly concerned about "their own" people. But it's a shame, because less nationalism might have helped them see others, such as Africans and indigenous Americans, as fully human and deserving of legal equality.
The Articles of Confederation were more libertarian than the Constitution, so the "founders" actually took a step backward for liberty.
The document wasn't perfect but a great and ever lasting foundation for the greatest country in the world. These and many other human errors were corrected. But in your previous statement you said that you didn;t care about the success of the the US. That is my real concern.
Can you imagine John Wayne cowering in fear over people halfway around the world? Can you imagine him shooting someone in the back because he's afraid of them? Or dropping bombs on innocent people from unmanned drones? Hell no, he'd want our good brave men right here defending America. What's the saying, "walk softly, but carry a big stick"? That's the attitude we need to get back to.
The fact is that many registered Republicans need to face the fact that they have more chance of drowning in their own bathtub than by an act of terrorism, and yet this more than any other issue is what is bankrupting our country. Frankly, these people are showing just how gullible they are to fear mongering.
It absolutely makes him less electable! Why would the people vote for him if the majority of politicians and the media laugh at his stance on liberty? It only makes sense. Which makes me sick to my gut.
I love how the majority of the crowd was cheering him on yet he was last in the polls; which also makes sense why the majority of Congress wants electronic voting booths.
Ron Paul speaks sense. That is why he will never be supported by the two "parties" who have carved up the wealth of this group of people called the United States.
The Demonrats and Regurgitans want two things:
1. Everything you own or produce;
2. Never to have to get a real job.
We the Sheeple have lost control over "our" government decades, if not scores of years ago.
The only way to be free is to drop out.
KutWrite 2 years ago
Ron Paul should have been President. He is qualified for the job and has more class than any of the Republicans I have seen so far! He is honest and he knows our Constitution and upholds it very well. I pray he runs for President 2012 he has my vote!
da1nonlybuscape 2 years ago 2
Ron Paul is the best man on that stage for the job. He is a TRUE conservative unlike the phoney Republicans on stage.
tauren2005 2 years ago 2
Ron Paul is too nationalist, but he's still more libertarian, a stronger Constitutionalist, a better fiscal conservative, and would make a better president by far than anybody else on that stage.
StarchildSF 2 years ago
Starchild, he is no nationalist. Where do get that idea?
Mike Benoit
Michaelbenoit7 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong Mike, I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for Ron Paul. But he definitely comes across as more concerned about those human beings arbitrarily considered "Americans" than about universal liberty. Perhaps the most clear-cut example is migration policy. He favors more government controls on people entering the United States, on the nationalist grounds that this is "our" country and since "they" are not part of "us" it's okay to legally discriminate against "them."
StarchildSF 2 years ago
Why is defending our borders LEAGALLY wrong?? We are more than happy to bring others into this country. As long as they enter legally. Globalization thinking will destroy this country.
straighttalkwithlar 2 years ago
Well, *my* borders delineate my personal space and possessions. So when you say "our" borders, I presume you really mean the borders of the entity called the United States. Conflating the personal with the national is one of the hallmarks of the nationalist paradigm. Why is it *legally* wrong to defend U.S. borders? It's unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution allows Congress to regulate *naturalization* (the process of becoming a citizen), not *immigration*, except for the importing of slaves.
StarchildSF 2 years ago
@StarchildSF, it's called the Constitution of the United States, not the Constitution of humans. In the perfect world, your philosophy would be correct, but we still live in a world where humans are tribal by nature.
The U.S. government could, and should, police the borders, and limit the number of immigrants allowed into this country. Otherwise, the American culture will be replaced by the culture flooding in, as is happening in So-Cal and the SW.
Sorry, but I'm biased towards my culture.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
Bryan - By this logic, the California government should also police California's borders and limit the number of immigrants allowed into this state, so that Californian culture won't be replaced by the culture of people from places like Texas and New York.
Why view our world through the eyes of nation-states, when national governments deriving their power and legitimacy from this system are responsible for the worst oppression in the world?
If we don't aim for ideals, we'll get mediocrity.
StarchildSF 2 years ago
P.S. - I believe as the Declaration of Independence says, that (humans) are created equal (in the eyes of the law). Therefore the law should not violate these inalienable rights or put one group of people over another by discriminating on the basis of nationality or where a person was born, any more than by discriminating on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability status. As a libertarian my goal is not success for the United States -- my goal is universal freedom.
StarchildSF 2 years ago
Universal freedom starts with individual freedom. No one can give you that. You are born free. Others take it away.
We, one by one, should begin to live freely, below the radar, as much out of the Federal Reserve-run economy as possible.
Over time, our current masters will slowly lose the funds and bodies they need as slaves to provide their riches and power.
"To change the world, change yourself." Gandhi
"None are as hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe
KutWrite 2 years ago 2
Wow the one I read doesn't need to use or have the word "human" in it. So that statement alone is indicative of your belief system and being concerened about the "universal freedom is exactly the problem. We ar a soverign country. Our founding fathers, I believe, weren't thinking about any other country or people except those in this country. I believe it is sad and unfortunate when people like yourself are not concerned about the success of the United States. God help this country.
straighttalkwithlar 2 years ago
I realize the Constitution doesn't say "human", that's why I put it in parenthesis. But if it did say "human beings" instead of "men", it would be a better document. Legal equality for women is important, don't you agree?
I consider myself a sovereign individual; so I do not recognize the U.S. government (or any other) as having sovereignty over me. Except for protecting life, liberty, and property, and arbitrating disputes, these entities called governments should stay out of our lives.
StarchildSF 2 years ago
"Our founding fathers... weren't thinking about any other country or people except those in this country."
I agree, they were quite nationalist and mostly concerned about "their own" people. But it's a shame, because less nationalism might have helped them see others, such as Africans and indigenous Americans, as fully human and deserving of legal equality.
The Articles of Confederation were more libertarian than the Constitution, so the "founders" actually took a step backward for liberty.
StarchildSF 2 years ago
The document wasn't perfect but a great and ever lasting foundation for the greatest country in the world. These and many other human errors were corrected. But in your previous statement you said that you didn;t care about the success of the the US. That is my real concern.
straighttalkwithlar 2 years ago
I love Ron Paul. I still carry two Ron Paul campaign DVDs on the project site. His words are timeless, like Jefferson's.
Look through the list at OneDollarDVDProject (com) and keep them for historical reasons. Make copies of my stuff.
Ron
ronaldneil 2 years ago 3
Can you imagine John Wayne cowering in fear over people halfway around the world? Can you imagine him shooting someone in the back because he's afraid of them? Or dropping bombs on innocent people from unmanned drones? Hell no, he'd want our good brave men right here defending America. What's the saying, "walk softly, but carry a big stick"? That's the attitude we need to get back to.
askwhatifdotorg 2 years ago 4
The fact is that many registered Republicans need to face the fact that they have more chance of drowning in their own bathtub than by an act of terrorism, and yet this more than any other issue is what is bankrupting our country. Frankly, these people are showing just how gullible they are to fear mongering.
askwhatifdotorg 2 years ago
Send this video out to all you know for Christmas presents. How to send it out through facebook>
Michaelbenoit7 2 years ago
Super pwnage. RP is my president
AirSasquatch 2 years ago 4
Pwned, indeed. I never get tired of watching this clip.
If I remember correctly, Fox cut this out of what was televised.
jbutte 2 years ago 6
Fox cut this out when they re-aired the debate, previously recorded.
gr8dalmuti 2 years ago 5
POWNED!!!!
RedWhiteandBetrayed 2 years ago 2
@RedWhiteandBetrayed BIG TIME!!!
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
It absolutely makes him less electable! Why would the people vote for him if the majority of politicians and the media laugh at his stance on liberty? It only makes sense. Which makes me sick to my gut.
I love how the majority of the crowd was cheering him on yet he was last in the polls; which also makes sense why the majority of Congress wants electronic voting booths.
America..........Can you smell the freedom?
Mauhadeeb28 2 years ago 7
@Mauhadeeb28 EXACTLY!
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago