I only know what laws requiring sanguinity for citizenship have been used for in the past. Or should we not learn from the past and make the same mistakes over and over? Expecting a different result in such circumstances -- isn't that the definition of insanity? Why do you think the white supremacists love him so much?
There are many, many other nations which do not allow someone to walk across the border, give birth the next day, then declare that the child is a citizen, and then use that kinship as a means of cutting in line for citizenship approval. In fact, that's the norm. You can't do it in Mexico. I'm pretty sure you can't do it in Canada. I guess they are preparing to round up the jews and deport them.
And some of the white supremacists like him because he shares *some* of their views. (Others hate libertarianism with a burning passion, such as Bill White, as I pointed out.) Namely, halting illegal immigration and cutting aid to Israel. There are several candidates who have made immigration an issue, but none who want to cut aid to Israel (he would like to see all foreign aid cut actually). So, Ron Paul is their choice. Two shared views instead of one. Okay, the nazis and Ron Paul believe in the first amendment, so I guess that actually makes *gasp* three issues they agree on.
However, if they are naive enough to believe that he would re-institute Jim Crow laws, they need to read his writings. He's a property rights absolutist. If he were in alive 100 years ago, he'd be fighting against Jim Crow, since it was a state mandate that dictated who you could conduct business with.
You say it's been debunked... I'd say Ron Paul should pick his friends more carefully.
Did you know that some of the opponents of using DDT to clear african swamps of malaria were rabid environmentalists who were afraid that DDT would perform exactly as promised, and reduce the death toll? In other words, they believe the earth is too overpopulated, and actually wanted people to die? So, I guess that means that all environmentalists want mass death in africa. How many examples like this do I have to give?
And you don't think it was sheer stupidity for him to say that the Arab nations will just make such good buddies with Israel if we bow out of the region and cut off all foreign aid? You don't think it's stupid to ignore the fact that we live in a global economy? That all we are now is a service economy and we NEED other nations? Ignorance.... naivete.... xenophobia...
Well funding both sides certainly hasn't helped ease tensions any.
Ron Paul is not ignoring the fact that we live in a global economy, he wants free trade (or perhaps, a uniformly low tariff) with all nations. He is absolutely not a trade sanctions and protectionism guy like Pat Buchanan. He is against thousand-page long trade agreements like NAFTA, which seek to micromanage trade.
Part 1: Read: F**k the elderly, the poor, school kids.... working families....
Part 2: F**k Israel.... F**k South Korea......
Part 1: First of all, it wouldn't even take a very big spending reduction to pay for eliminating the IRS. We do have other taxes. All we'd have to do is roll back spending to the still-bloated level it was 10 years ago.
School kids scored better when the federal government had zero say in education, that is a statistical fact. The poor would be better off without payroll taxes, a more vigorous economy, and charities would see a tidal wave of donations once people got to keep their full check. Ending social security overnight would be bad, because lots of people contributed to it heavily (and thus had less money for their own private accounts). So, ending it overnight would be a bad thing. Good thing RP doesn't support that.
Part 2: Israel has the best military in the region by far. It's a bad neighborhood to live in, but they chose it. Our support of Israel (and other hated governments in the region) has caused us nothing but trouble.
As for Korea, it's been 50 freaking years. That is way more than enough time. South Korea has developed tremendously and could (probably does) support a perfectly capable military. North Korea is a backwards shithole that has mass famines, because socialism doesn't work. They can't feed their own people much less launch an aggressive war. Honestly, putting pressure on some tinpot dictatorship only strengthens them, because they can use Uncle Sam as a scapegoat for their own failures.
At least you're addressing the issues here though.
As for Giuliani, to be fair, it wasn't ground zero when he put emergency HQ at there. And building 7 had never been attacked, the towers were. As for the other stuff, well, Giuliani shouldn't be president either and most of us here in NY know that.
He put the HQ pretty close to the towers, against the advice of his advisors. That's because they had been attacked in 1993.
Actually, that's an outright lie. On Meet the Press on Sunday, Paul acknowledged taking earmarks for his constituency. (He's against them for everyone else, of course, same as term limits... they're for other poor saps, but he'll stay in Congress til the cows come home). He said he sees it as a "tax credit" for his folk and as long as they're around, dammit, he's gonna feed at that trough.
Ok, we got it...all the taxpayer watchdog groups have got it wrong, they don't look at votes, they look only at speeches.
Once a certain level of spending is determined, it only makes sense to bring home as much as you can.
It turns out, though, that for all his scourging of government excess, Paul never has been much of a crusader against earmarks. As he put it in a floor speech last year, “earmarks . . . are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real problem is that the United States government is too big, spends too much, and has too much power.”
Still, why play along by earmarking federal spending? Because a crackdown on earmarks, he says, would only grant the executive branch more control over where the money goes. The total amount of spending wouldn’t change. “There’s nothing wrong with designating where the money goes,” Paul says — so long as the earmark is “up front and everyone knows about it,” rather than having it slipped in at the last minute with no scrutiny.
In an ideal world, Paul says, there wouldn’t be a federal income tax. But since there is, he says, he feels a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. “I don’t want them to take it,” he says, “but if they do take it, I’d just as soon help my constituents get it back.”
ThatÂ’s a pretty reasonable argument. I think the Designated Hitter is an abomination but were I (for some incredibly bizarre reason) suddenly named manager of an American League team, IÂ’d nonetheless use it. One plays the game by the rules as they exist even while working to change the rules. To do otherwise is to shortchange your team or, in this case, constituents.
source