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

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 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.

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?