Perhaps, but he’s not the one who wants to vote for a bircher-society anti-semitic truther loving hypocritical loon without a real grasp of the constitution or economics.
I think that McCain’s biggest obstacle is that he’s for open borders--he’d get smoked on both sides of the aisle on that one.
That’s simply not true!
On another note, James Madison was 5 foot 3 and 3/4 inches and is the shortest president of the US
Yeah, and if memory serves me, that was about two hundred years ago when the President was elected by the U.S.House of Representatives. In those days, the President wasn’t elected by the people.
No, I don’t just vote for winners. But if I have a choice between voting for someone that leaves something to be desired, but who can keep a total disaster like Hillary out of the White House, or voting for someone I really like who hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, then I’m gonna vote to keep the disaster out of the White House. When you knowingly give up a chance to actually influence the outcome of an election in order to make an idealistic vote, you’ve pretty much made a nonvote.
So what you’re saying is you compromise your principles when you vote by only voting for someone with a chance of winning.
I disagree. I’d rather make an idealistic vote than compromise my beliefs.
Unfortunately, coming from you, that sort of idiotic tripe isn’t surprising. I take it from your statement that you’re 100% behind all of Paul’s positions on all issues. ‘Cuz if you aint, then by your own statement, you’re compromising your principles by voting for him. There is no compromise of principles in voting for the best candidate that actually stands a chance of winning. Voting for someone like Paul, who has absolutely no chance of winning may not be totally pointless, but it comes close. Not only will he not get enough votes to effect the outcome for other candidates, he won’t even get enough to influence future party or candidate positions on the issues. By voting for him, you willingly give up your ability to have any effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election. You go ahead and make your idealistic, zero impact vote.
*Actually, If somebody you despise wins, your vote won’t be zero impact. You will have assisted that candidate in winning by making no effort to prevent it,*
I think that McCain’s biggest obstacle is that he’s for open borders--he’d get smoked on both sides of the aisle on that one.
That’s simply not true!
On another note, James Madison was 5 foot 3 and 3/4 inches and is the shortest president of the US
Okay, maybe he’s not actively for open borders. He just doesn’t care enough about closing them to get behind any serious effort to do so. Same thing when it comes to providing a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. He certainly isn’t in the forefront of any effort to stop that, is he?
Perhaps, but he’s not the one who wants to vote for a bircher-society anti-semitic truther loving hypocritical loon without a real grasp of the constitution or economics.
Is he really anti-semitic or just anti-interventionist. It seems to me that it is the latter that lies behind his foreign policy position. It’s so easy to label someone anti-semitic if they question the US relationship with Israel. He also questions the relationship with WTO, Nafta and the UN.
And if he knew so little about the economy how come he was warning about the housing slump and the credit crisis before anyone else was.
Perhaps, but he’s not the one who wants to vote for a bircher-society anti-semitic truther loving hypocritical loon without a real grasp of the constitution or economics.
Is he really anti-semitic or just anti-interventionist. It seems to me that it is the latter that lies behind his foreign policy position. It’s so easy to label someone anti-semitic if they question the US relationship with Israel. He also questions the relationship with WTO, Nafta and the UN.
Uh, r.j...., Paul willingly associates with folks who produce anti-semitic trash like the following:
The year 2008 marks the 60th Anniversary of the Nakba in Palestine. Nakba means Catastrophe or Tragedy in Arabic, both of which are deserving of a capital C or T. It is an ongoing Holocaust unlike any other the world has known. Sixty years ago, come May, a brand new “state” announced itself within Palestine. It named itself “Israel.”It was a well-equipped war state since the very beginning of its Zionist-planned inception, and its military was ready to roll. Since 1948, Israel has ethnically cleansed much of Palestine of its Palestinian landowners and inhabitants with force, turning the majority of Palestinians into an unrecognized nation of refugees. Israel then declared this stolen property to be the new homeland for “the Jewish only” state. Not a day of peace has been known for 60 years in what was once the Holy Land. At this time, over 5.3 million ill-treated Palestinians continue to suffer under the barbaric apartheid of what is now a minority Jewish population in their land.
The world is expected to look the other way as imperialist Israel (partnered with the US) continues its savage insult upon the Holy Land and her refugees. In 2007 alone, the 59th year of Israel’s military occupation of Palestine, the Israeli military forces murdered 373 Palestinians, one-third of whom were unarmed civilians including women and children. The other deaths are regularly shrugged off by mainstream media as “terrorists” or “resistance fighters” or other accusatory labels suggesting that those who resist the Israeli advances deserve to die.
I think that qualifies him for a label of being anti-semitic.
Is he really anti-semitic or just anti-interventionist. It seems to me that it is the latter that lies behind his foreign policy position. It’s so easy to label someone anti-semitic if they question the US relationship with Israel. He also questions the relationship with WTO, Nafta and the UN.
And if he knew so little about the economy how come he was warning about the housing slump and the credit crisis before anyone else was.
Ron Paul is a nut job.
He literally has no clue.
I would love him to study the Articles of Confederation so he could see why the US went with a strong central government.
As to being anti semitic, he as been documented as knowingly receiving money from anti-semitic groups. As a candidate, you need to distance yourself from those kinds of people. Ron Paul has not done this.
Is he really anti-semitic or just anti-interventionist. It seems to me that it is the latter that lies behind his foreign policy position. It’s so easy to label someone anti-semitic if they question the US relationship with Israel. He also questions the relationship with WTO, Nafta and the UN.
And if he knew so little about the economy how come he was warning about the housing slump and the credit crisis before anyone else was.
Ron Paul is a nut job.
He literally has no clue.
I would love him to study the Articles of Confederation so he could see why the US went with a strong central government.
As to being anti semitic, he as been documented as knowingly receiving money from anti-semitic groups. As a candidate, you need to distance yourself from those kinds of people. Ron Paul has not done this.
Fair enough. I’ve never known that much about him other than his economy thinking.
Perhaps, but he’s not the one who wants to vote for a bircher-society anti-semitic truther loving hypocritical loon without a real grasp of the constitution or economics.
Is he really anti-semitic or just anti-interventionist.
He says neocon with a lot of inflection / emotion… a lot. I took it as a cue to mean Jew.
Anti interventionist doesn’t mean you can scapegoat fellow Americans for being Jewish (or anything else) and supporting interventionism…
I disagree. I’d rather make an idealistic vote than compromise my beliefs.
So if it came down to your one vote as to who would be the next US President, you would vote for Ron Paul over the actual Republican nomination even though you knew it would mean 8 more years of Billary?
Can you give me an example of where he’s supporting positions that would lead to open borders?
Can you give me a serious example of legislation he has supported to either close the border to prevent legalisation for illegal immigrants? On the contrary, he has supported plenty of paths to legalisation and only sham attempts to lock down the boarder (which, by design, prevent work to actually fix the problem by acting as if something was already done).
Can you give me an example of where he’s supporting positions that would lead to open borders?
Can you give me a serious example of legislation he has supported to either close the border to prevent legalisation for illegal immigrants? On the contrary, he has supported plenty of paths to legalisation and only sham attempts to lock down the boarder (which, by design, prevent work to actually fix the problem by acting as if something was already done).
Can you give me an example of where he’s supporting positions that would lead to open borders?
Can you give me a serious example of legislation he has supported to either close the border to prevent legalisation for illegal immigrants? On the contrary, he has supported plenty of paths to legalisation and only sham attempts to lock down the boarder (which, by design, prevent work to actually fix the problem by acting as if something was already done).
Can you give me an example of where he’s supporting positions that would lead to open borders?
Can you give me a serious example of legislation he has supported to either close the border to prevent legalisation for illegal immigrants? On the contrary, he has supported plenty of paths to legalisation and only sham attempts to lock down the boarder (which, by design, prevent work to actually fix the problem by acting as if something was already done).
Cheers, but I was talking about McCain, and I think sl0re is too. :-)
Sorry, my bad. The exchange makes much more sense now. I was put off because it started when sl0re seemed to quoted the wrong post (the one about James Madison being 5 ft 3 and 3/4)
I just took a look at that 2nd site I found the following:
In December 2007 McCain promised . .
to first secure borders with ‘walls in urban areas, through vehicle barriers, with cameras and sensors.
He’s not personally for a physical fence running the entire length of the US / Mexico border, but it he does want to secure it with technology along the whole way. Having read quite a bit about the issue, it’s clear he’s not the only one who thinks this, many think that a physical fence in the remote areas could be fairly ineffective.
I have read quotes from him that say that while he’s not personally for the full length fence he’ll build it if that’s what is wanted (I presume by congress and/or the American people)
Anyway, I can’t see how wanting to secure the border with a combination physical / virtual fence is equal to being for “open borders”
Again in December 2007 at a debate
“[W]e must secure the borders first, and then we move on to all of these other issues which many of them are heart wrenching and humanitarian. Very tough decisions. But once we secure the borders, I’m convinced the American people will proceed with issues like this in a humanitarian and compassionate fashion.”
These are only his words, but he’s certainly not talking in favour of open borders, and I’ve yet to see how he is acting in favour of it.
Same debate:
“I learned that Americans want the border secured first. That’s what we will do. But I’ll say to you what I said at the last debate before a non- Hispanic audience. And that is, we have to address this issue with compassion and love, because these are human beings.”
The site gives him a “Fair” rating in the area of stopping future illegal immigration, which to my mind must include border security. I’m sure they wouldn’t give a fair rating to somebody in favour of open borders.
My greater problem with all of this is that “Open Borders” has become a political buzzword that has essentially lost any real meaning. It is thrown around willy nilly by political commentators at the moment but in actual fact no presidential candidates are actually for open borders. There are some people who are, some really hard-core Libertarians really do believe in the idea of open boarders, and they make an interesting case. I don’t really agree with it but at least they have it thought out and I can understand where they’re coming from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_immigration
Clearly though that is not the position of John McCain (Or Ron Paul for that matter)
It seems that these days “open borders” is used to get an emotional effect, but really just means that the person being accused of holding those views is just not as hard-core on the whole umbrella of issues tied to immigration as the accuser would like.
It’s not the only example of this kind of thing happening in our 24 hour news / youtube / soundbite political world we live in these days. It’s sad really.
