-5 votes

Blind Chinese Activist Arrives in the USA

REUTERS: BLIND CHINESE ACTIVIST ARRIVES IN THE USA
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/19/us-china-dissident...

QUESTION TO RON PAUL SUPPORTERS:
What would you expect from a Ron Paul Administration?

It is without doubt that the majority of peace loving people of the world find great sympathy with the Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng and admire his activism against an oppressive government. Admiration however does not and should not always translate into geopolitical intervention in other country's affairs.

Under the Obama administration the United States has interfered in Chinese internal affairs according to the Chinese government. The end result however is another feather in President Obama's cap of peace and morality. Like it or not...Saving an internationally renowned blind activist is a political coup both within and outside of the United States.

And this has led me wondering...

What would Ron Paul supporters expect from a Ron Paul Administration in a situation like this? Would Ron Paul supporters expect the same from their president or would they demand that the United States keep to its non-interventionist policy by leaving issues of the blind Chinese activist to the Chinese government.

I post this question for political discussion and debate.
Please post what you would expect from President Ron Paul if he were faced with this case.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Posing the Question:"What Would Ron Do?

Is really NOT the pertinent discussion to be had.
It should really be about how a "deal" was cut.
Hillary visits China with Geithner in tow.
Blind Chinese dissident "ecapes",runs to Hillary for "help".
Hillary appears to sidestep the issue, sends him back to his "keepers".....
The BIG-Brother-News broadcasts this "affront to freedom".
Now.....THE DEAL
China gets OK from the FED for 3 Banks on US Soil.
Obama gets to be 'the hero" for granting political asylum.
...and NOW you know........
..The REST of "the Story"....
PS
Nice try Rothschild...you did say you wanted to "test" the DP Community...yes you did...I won't stick around .
I don't need a "Report Card" from you.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Troll Alert

Look at this douche history, been here 2 months and 90% of his topics received negative votes. Moderator, please give this loser a chance to do something with his life by closing his DP account.

Spoken like a true status quo supporter

Yes, you are correct. A large number of my postings have been downgraded. It is also clear that you don't like my postings.

What do we do with those that challenge the group think...the status quo? The brainwashing you suffer from from years of being on main street is obviously permanent.

When will you wake up to real liberty and learn the meaning of freedom? Put down the cool-aid and open your eyes to freedom. Learn to question everything.

We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.

Except you spelled it wrong

It is spelled "Liberty and justice for all" rather than "Status quo supporter", That includes you and if you choose to help that is great, but if not, then please stand aside so that we can do it for you because apparently you are incapable of understanding how to do it yourself Sir.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

I don't know, and I am not . . .

accusing you of being a 'troll'--

however, though there may be some refuge for the man here, I am afraid he's found himself in a country as shackled as the one he left.

Mixed feelings about that.

How many American political prisoners languish in prisons?

Not sure what Dr. Paul would say about this--

I'm glad the man escaped where he was, but I think that it would have been smarter for him to have gone to a more obscure country--

otherwise, I fear he is being used as a pawn. By the PTB. Playing games between America and China--

sad--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

TROLL

read all this trolls topics,this douche bag wants to stir up trouble.dont get wrapped up.

freedom420

non-intervention still isn't isolationism

I think your lack of understanding of the issue is the main problem. Why did China want this dissident out of their country? Maybe, because he’s a dissident. Now, he is in a foreign country and any information about him can be censored. This whole situation is better for China than for Chen. They tend not to like people causing problems in their country and his continued presence was probably causing them more of a headache than anything else.

This blind man just happened to escape and then make it to the U.S. Embassy? Did he have help? Yeah, the Chinese government helped him to escape. They couldn’t kill him; it would turn him into a martyr. They couldn’t let him go around free, defying the government. Now, they can say to the people, “Look, this guy who you thought cared about you has run away to America.” It seems like a win for them.

To get to your actual quesiton, I am thinking a Ron Paul presidency would look at the situation in a little more detail, rather than trying to apply your ill-conceived application of non-interventionist policy. Asylums do not negate a non-interventionist foreign policy. The whole purpose of the policy is to not get involved in wars. If we can help potential refugees, it still fits within the policy. Jefferson, an advocate of Non-intervention, supported political refugees from France during the French revolution. Seeing as the United States remained neutral through the French Revolution, it would seem to establish a precedent of helping where we can without having to get involved in some type of military conflict.

Just because people don’t get involved in your discussion topic, doesn’t mean we don’t have an answer for you. It is more likely we had 3 state conventions to deal with this weekend and we didn’t have the time to mess with your lack of knowledge when it came to non-intervention.

Lack of Knowledge

No need to be concerned with my lack of knowledge. Worry about your own.

the notion of "non-interventionist" is not my ill conceived definition as you suggest. This simplistic of non-intervention is indeed what I have been reading in much of the press and on forums such as this. There is, wrong or not, a widespread misunderstanding of this issue among many of the followers of Ron Paul.

I was attempting to test this. You will notice from some of the postings that my expectations were not misplaced. Your posting, minus the insults, does suggest that Dr. Paul could grant amnesty and still be consistent with his principles but is this what many people believe and would it be accepted.

Thanks for posting.

We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.

Perhaps a bit

Rereading my post, I do see how I might have come across as a bit pernicious. I apologize.

I see how others here have labeled you a troll, and if by asking mere questions arouses such vitriol, I can understand how you would become a bit snide as I have seen in your responses to other posts. I do not have the time to read your topics others have said are made to cause trouble.

However, I do appreciate your desire to question some of our beliefs as it pertains to non-interventionism or libertarianism in general. What others sometime don’t recognize, is these questions help us to grow and expand our realm of thinking. We would be no better than the established parties if we were called to toe the Ron Paul platform without question.

Thank you for keeping some of us in check; even if they don’t realize you are helping them to grow into better people and patriots, you are doing them a great service.

Thank you for recognizing the quality in what I post

Thank you CptStubbing for the kind words. Through discourse various opinions can be tested and make a difference. I do hope to improve the quality of this forum with content that challenges the dominant Kool Aid drinking bias.

Cheers!

We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.

Simple

Everybody should be treated as an individual. No special treatment for or against. That is the only moral stand.

Sunday School

lol "everyone should be treated as an individual" won't cut it as a president's foreign policy. haa haa haa

So what you are saying if I understand correctly, you would expect President Paul to ignore requests for political asylum as in this case on the grounds that no one gets special treatment.

You might want to stick to Sunday school.

We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.

I will

Thanks. Liberty is not such a difficult subject to understand if you study it a little. Hang around on this site and you may learn something.

no . . . no--

the man may receive special protection here, because he is a chess piece for the PTB in their power plays.

But where is the refuge in a country that is going downhill fast?

Maybe in the Asian community he'll be safe, but how safe is a chess piece?

If Hillary and Obama cared about human rights, they wouldn't show it in this way. This is a political play, to what end? I don't know, but they have their motives--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Well what we're dealing with

Well what we're dealing with here is another international incident that's being shamelessly exploited by the Obama administration as pr/campaign event. It's disgusting, it's tasteless and opportunistic. None of us know what went on behind the screens, so it's hard to judge what Ron Paul should do, as just invoking non-intervention principles here isn't gonna cut it.

Just Won't Cut It

Yeah, was thinking the same which is why I posted this topic.

Would this be an example of a case in which the majority of Ron Paul supporters accept that President Paul would need to be pragmatic by bending the "non-interventionist" policy for humanitarian/political reasons or would die hard Constitutionally minded libertarians reject his decision to grant amnesty?

That is the question at hand and you seem to see the problem when you say non-intervention principles in a case like this "isn't gonna cut it."

Thanks for sharing.

It is disappointing that members here have scored this topic down, actually in negative territory now I noticed, not to mention all the accusations of my being a troll for raising this question.

We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.

Ambassadors need to be utilized

Ambassadors need to be utilized and useful for something. Most if not all news the propaganda american press brings to the national stage is to serve a purpose. Obama has once again sought to politicize this "story" for his own glory. An acting president who is not busy enough with his daily duties of protecting America obviously doesn't know to apply the "chain of command" for common matters like this one. President Paul would KNOW how to utilize all staff effectively and accordingly. There would not be chaos and confusion with Ron Paul as president.

Wait, what?

Sorry, I haven't followed the topic really closely, but what amnesty are you talking about?

Further, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to suggest when you speak of "bending the 'non-interventionist' policy". Are you suggesting that a hypothetical Paul administration should somehow use the power delegated to them by the American people to pressure China because of the way it treats its citizen?

If so, the answer is a resounding: NO.

The power delegated to any gov't extends to its citizen and its territory. It does not have jurisdiction, so to speak, beyond that.

Now that's the gov't. If OTOH the people want to do something about it, that's their business. If they want to denounce, boycott, heck, even if they want to try to smuggle weapons into that country to help dissidents there, the gov't musn't interfere with that (and they would do the latter at their own peril, of course).

This really is a no-brainer.

Read the topic content of this thread. there is also a link

Check out the link for further info. If you have been watching the news in the past 24 hours you will have also noticed that most media have been covering this news breaking story.

We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.

I did

amnesty [ˈæmnɪstɪ]
n pl -ties
1. a general pardon, esp for offences against a government
2. a period during which a law is suspended to allow offenders to admit their crime without fear of prosecution

Now, who granted amnesty to whom and for what?

lol - feeling pedantic

lol - feeling pedantic much?
I meant to use the term asylum and not amnesty.
Sad you could not follow the topic due to the misuse of a term.
haa haa

We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.

Yes well.. I've argued this

Yes well.. I've argued this before. Principles only go so far. People just misunderstand politics (especially international). They need to get out of their disneyfied mindstate: Nobody walks away with clean hands, not even dr. Paul. If there's a clear-cut answer to anything it is NOT A POLITICAL issue! In politics all you basically do all the time is to handle the issues nobody wants to deal with, mostly because there is no right answer, no right principle to apply and nobody wants to take the blame for the damage that's inevitably done.

But anyway.. as for the Ron

But anyway.. as for the Ron Paul administration. They would probably not have brought themselves into a position where this particular incident would have happened. At least not in the way it had happened now.

It seems to me, the Obama administration either played an active role here or at the very least was just keen to exploit it for political gain. That's something Ron Paul wouldn't do. So this activist probably wouldn't get the idea that he could just hop along on Air Force One like that.

Yes, I agree

You say:

It seems to me, the Obama administration either played an active role here or at the very least was just keen to exploit it for political gain. That's something Ron Paul wouldn't do. So this activist probably wouldn't get the idea that he could just hop along on Air Force One like that.

I agree with you on that. It is difficult to explain how a weak blind dude crawls out of a house under police watch, climb a few fences and a river and make it to a getaway car, and manages to make it through the Chinese police security line surrounding the American embassy. But that is a topic for another thread :-)

Regardless, such an incident could happen again under a Paul administration and it is relevant to discuss what his supporters would expect from the govt in such a case.

We are like the mechanism of a watch: each part is essential.

Meh, maybe the guy is just

Meh, maybe the guy is just good at kung fu. He certainly had time to practice. Again we really don't know what went on and it makes no sense to speculate based on some news reports.

Political asylum and no comment

What would I expect?

Political asylum and no comment.

We don't need foreign trouble

We don't need foreign trouble makers. China, the middle east, Africa are not our problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong

Correct me if I'm wrong, be I was under the impression the United States were founded by foreign troublemakers.

You could be wrong

I'm not positive, but all of the founders of our country were born on this soil. They didn't seem to like the foreign trouble makers across the pond treating them so poorly.

That so?

Yet the legend has it that those United States were founded by liberty-minded people who'd fled their oppressive gov't at home. Which makes them trouble-makers as far as that gov't is concerned.

And what about the millions of people who emigrated from all over the world to disperse in the proverbial American Melting Pot, looking for freedom, prosperity, etc.? Don't you think they might have been considered trouble-makers back at home?