Even Paul Can Pander

This ad's going up on Iowa and New Hampshire TV. After some pleasant footage of (*cough*European*cough*) immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, we see a swarthy figure paddling it across a river and hear this:

Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders and overwhelm our hospitals, schools and social services. Ron Paul wants border security now. Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student VISAs for terrorist nations.

Justin Raimondo is sickened:

This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, “terrorist nations,” the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance. If these are, in truth, “terrorist nations” – which most will take to mean all predominantly Muslim nations — then why not invade them, kill the terrorists, and be done with it? This phraseology gives the War Party carte blanche – and, believe you me, they’ll use it.

As Murray Rothbard explained, the anti-interventionist conservatives of the 1950s made the same mistake when they jumped on Joe McCarthy’s bandwagon. The “red scare” was payback for the “brown scare” of the 1940s in which prominent conservatives were basically run out of public life on a rail for not getting with the program until Pearl Harbor. The original McCarthyite movement was directed against domestic reds, and was a sweet revenge for those conservatives who had been targeted as “subversive” and even “pro-Hitler” for being anti-interventionist during the Roosevelt era. However, it wasn’t long before the domestic witch-hunt spilled over the border and became an international armed crusade that roped us into NATO, lured us into Korea, and got us bogged down in Vietnam.

Thousands of students from the Middle East, North Africa, and the Muslim countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere come to this country and bring home with them the ideas of liberty, tolerance, and fair play that are the predominant themes of our culture. Barring them would be politically foolish, economically counterproductive, and a prelude to much worse.

Raimondo wants the campaign to skunk the ad, but that won't happen. Paul is a politician: He's pushing one of the few issues where the majority of Republican voters are on his side. He's done this before, many times. I asked him why he spoke so much about abortion rights at the Ames straw poll and he didn't budge:

“I think that’s part of the freedom message,” Paul told me. “You always want to broaden the base, and in this area, in this state, you want to appeal to social conservatives without sacrificing any principles.”

Wink, wink.

If you want to blame feckless Iowans for driving Paul to this, check out Phil Klein's jeremiad against the caucuses.

Comments

JasonL | December 31, 2007, 4:25pm | #

Counting the evils that we can lay at the feet of Iowans, I'm out of fingers and toes.

Stupid farm bill. Stupid energy bill. Stupid candidates.

Randolph Carter | December 31, 2007, 4:26pm | #

Huzzah for hard hitting ads! People seem to forget that 1)Paul is trying to win and 2)Paul is trying to win a Republican party primary.

I would prefer a "they took ar jarbs" baiting ad and a win to none and a loss.

Inkstained Wretch | December 31, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Well, hey, if Justin Raimondo's against it ...

Seriously, all the ad does is make clear what has always been Paul's position on immigration. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

joe | December 31, 2007, 4:34pm | #

Even given that, Mr. Carter, "no student visas for students from terrorist nations" is appalling, both on substance and rhetoric.

"Terrorist nations?"

ghoo | December 31, 2007, 4:37pm | #

he's making it harder for me to vote for him

whiskey | December 31, 2007, 4:37pm | #

I wonder if now is the time to call "no student visas for students from terrorist nations" with all the despondency over Bhutto's assassination that we're getting this past week. I mean really, is this a call for our immigration motto to be "No More Bhuttos?"

joe | December 31, 2007, 4:37pm | #

Hmm, maybe "terrorist nations" is Paul's signal that he isn't buying the "idealist" neocon line about spreading democracy, and wants to provide an outlet for the "those people aren't fit for democracy" crowd. Which must be a lot bigger among the Republican electorate than four years ago.

jtuf | December 31, 2007, 4:38pm | #

No more visas, WTF? Students who come to the US on student visas are following the entry laws. The US should hand out more visas and raise quotas to relieve pressure away from illegal routes.

Bingo | December 31, 2007, 4:39pm | #

Agreeing with jtuf. I don't like this ad.

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 4:40pm | #

I'm a strong Ron Paul supporter, but it's getting harder and harder to ignore his pandering to stump-toothed morons on this issue.

shecky | December 31, 2007, 4:40pm | #

I guess the Tancredo crowd is up for grabs.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2007, 4:40pm | #

Reagan was wrong about a lot of things too, so what? ...he was still the closest thing we had to a libertarian president.

Randolph Carter | December 31, 2007, 4:44pm | #

yeah the word choice is worse than atrocious, but the hope is that it'll play in Peoria...

I am in 100% disagreement with Dr. Paul on this particular issue as well, but immigration's a winner and from what I can tell this is what he's been saying all along anyways.

Benjamin Bolton | December 31, 2007, 4:45pm | #

Fact is, Paul knows that there are no "terrorist nations" at the moment. Nations do not sponsor terrorism; if they did and the US was attacked, you can darn well bet we'd go through the congressional method of a declaration of war.

Paul is about Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity... illegal immigrants who feed off the state's welfare are directly in opposition to the small government that Paul advocates.

Immigration has a place... but it's not illegally. Nothing has changed in Paul's postition. This isn't "pandering", though the phrase "terrorist nations" is poorly chosen.

Duckman | December 31, 2007, 4:47pm | #

There are alot of Ron Paul supporters upset with the line about student visas, even those who generally support Ron Paul's stance on immigration.

Apparently, that last line of the ad may not even actually represent Ron Paul's actual stance on student visas. See this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=68913

The Frith™ | December 31, 2007, 4:48pm | #

Dondero?

joe | December 31, 2007, 4:48pm | #

illegal immigrants who feed off the state's welfare are directly in opposition to the small government that Paul advocates.

And this relates to Saudi Arabian college students paying sticker price at NYU how, exactly?

Ruthless | December 31, 2007, 4:49pm | #

Guy Montag,
I'm continuing from an earlier thread.
How 'bout this for a t-shirt:
"War is the crack of the masses."

This would work equally well:
"War is the crack of them asses."

Bingo | December 31, 2007, 4:50pm | #

Additionally, I'm pretty sure that people with student visas don't swim across rivers to get into the country. The imagery is even dumber than the message.

TLB | December 31, 2007, 4:51pm | #

"SpecialInterestCountries" is a TermOfArt, such as used here. However, if the ad had said that (and included examples of such countries), it would have had to be a few minutes long. And, that term doesn't apply to all Muslim countries as Raimondo implies. And, of course, there have been cases of people coming from such countries on visas, not abiding by their terms, and wrecking havoc.

Let me suggest a better tactic: wonder why they capitalized the word. Whine about that for a while, it'll keep you off the streets.

P.S. Anyone want to sign up and defend me from a smear?

Dangerman | December 31, 2007, 4:56pm | #

Last week, I was in a store that was playing the local country station, and I heard a couple of guys over by the log chains snickering at the end of the ad. I didn't get close enough to see if they were stump tooth'd, but one of them repeated the 'terrorist nations' line again at the checkout, and seemed to be a bit incredulous. I don't think this hits as hard as you might want it too, RC.

brotherben | December 31, 2007, 4:57pm | #

Bingo | December 31, 2007, 4:50pm | #

Additionally, I'm pretty sure that people with student visas don't swim across rivers to get into the country. The imagery is even dumber than the message

But the average voter is even dumber than the imagery. Not a whole lotta voters look very deep at a candidate. Give us a good hook in a jingle and late us know that our little bit of hate is acceptable and we will jump on board.

Bhamba | December 31, 2007, 5:03pm | #

"End Birthright Citizenship"????

Will the Paul administration be ending the rest of the 14th amendment too?

Randolph Carter | December 31, 2007, 5:04pm | #

Dangerman,
That makes me a sad panda. Have you gotten any mailers yet?

Kwix | December 31, 2007, 5:06pm | #

P.S. Anyone want to sign up and defend me from a smear?

The secret is not to defend yourself from the smear. The secret is that there is no smear.

Kwix | December 31, 2007, 5:07pm | #

Obviously Tancredo's .7% was just too good for Paul to pass up.

William R | December 31, 2007, 5:09pm | #

Another reason to vote for Ron Paul. He recognizes the utter foolishness of mass immigration with a welfare state. Importing millions of poor people only grows government.

Brent | December 31, 2007, 5:12pm | #

End Birthright Citizenship =
Amend the constitution, or clarify via Courts, but most likely have to amend the constitution.

No More Student Visas from "Terrorist" Nations =
Being more strict when accepting student visas from nations that harbor terrorist.

Ad is def pandering, isn't Paul's taste - hopefully the campaign knows what they are doing.

Oh, and Ron Paul has always been a pro-life Libertarian. That isn't pandering, that's just what he thinks.

Ron | December 31, 2007, 5:13pm | #

Pandering? He's been saying the same thing since 2001:

"Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department."

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=222

Uh any inconsistency?

Michael McDonnough | December 31, 2007, 5:18pm | #

I guess some of Ron Paul's libertarian supporters had forgotten that Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket for President not the Libertarian ticket as in 1988. Is it so shocking that Ron Paul would highlight his position on strong defense and border security and the amnesty issue. These are all pretty popular in the GOP. Perhaps not so in the LP but I rest my case.

Brandybuck | December 31, 2007, 5:18pm | #

Immigration is the one sole issue I disagree with Ron Paul on. I've ignored the "physically secure our borders" up to now, so I'm sure I can ignore it in the future too.

bryanD | December 31, 2007, 5:21pm | #

Great ad. This is the opening game. The point is to determine all salient points and cover them better than one's opponent.

A salient point is border security. Paul is not now going to be mistaken for a satellite recon proponent or an electric eye guy if this ad gets good circulation, which it had better.

We need to quit feeding the trite Mister Rogers/ Good Doctor/ Ghandi meme. The pot smokers and the droopy-drawers are already in the bag.

Libertarian nationalism is the active ingredient of the Paul campaign and the oppositions' general incompetence and all-around bad intent is the propellent.

Both are highlighted by this ad.

Jon | December 31, 2007, 5:24pm | #

End Birthright Citizenship.

I am definitely for not giving children born to ILLEGAL residents citizenship. Their parents where under US jurisdiction illegally therefore should not get the benefits of say a legal resident.

If a person was under a work visa or a temporary visa and gave birth to a child then yes I believe that child then should have the opportunity to become a citizen.

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 5:26pm | #

Ron,

I think you only need to go back to 1998 to find Ron Paul advocating the classical liberal position of open immigration. He says he changed his position on this because of the welfare state, but I don't see how welfarism is any more or less intractable today than it was in 1998.

The idea that any one constituency is more entitled than another to welfare funds should be ridiculous to a libertarian--it's all stolen money.

MCW | December 31, 2007, 5:27pm | #

Its halarious to watch you wingnuts stumble over eachother to defend Ron Paul's bigatry.

Ron Paul: anti-choice, anti-civil rights, anti-working class.

Pro-immigration restriction, pro-creationism, pro-wingnut.

Kwix | December 31, 2007, 5:31pm | #

Speaking of Paul and New Hampshire:
Apparently Fox News is to have a televised debate on January 6, 2008. Despite Ron Paul polling at 7% in NH, compared to Huck's 10.7% and Thompson's 3.4, Fox has decided not to invite him to debate.

joe | December 31, 2007, 5:31pm | #

He says he changed his position on this because of the welfare state, but I don't see how welfarism is any more or less intractable today than it was in 1998.

Which, once again, has nothing whatsoever to do with Iranian 18-year-olds paying full tuition at GWU to get a business degree.

KipEsquire | December 31, 2007, 5:34pm | #

Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department."

And this ("there are no inherent individual rights, only 'constitutional' rights") is a libertarian position -- how?

The theocrat "endowed by their Creator" inanity is more coherent.

Nash | December 31, 2007, 5:34pm | #

I'd like to once again remind everyone that Ron Paul is trying to win the REPUBLICAN nomination for president and is running the 30 second emotion pandering ad in IOWA.

He's not running as a libertarian. He's not even a true big L libertarian, but he's still the most libertarian candidate running and unlike previous libertarian candidates he's actually impacting the race in a positive way.

The caucus is 2 days away boys and girls. You get votes anyway you can. I could care less what his rhetoric is, only what his voting record says. I don't agree with all of it but I agree with most of it, and I certainly like it better than anyone else's.

Jerry | December 31, 2007, 5:35pm | #

Paul should look to the new Swiss immigration laws. I wish the EU had them. There is nothing wrong with immigration when immigrants actively contribute to society, but the stock that is currently coming in (more so in Europe though) is not quite what you want.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 5:41pm | #

Justin Raimondo is sickened...

That guy is always having a fargin' cow about something. No real surprise there.

I am an open borders guy but it is hard to find fault with someone who believes that one cannot have open borders with a welfare state.

What we need is a wholesale reform of immigration policy and a way to accomodate foreign workers.

And finally, I may disagree with RP on this and a few other things but I'm with him at least 80% of the time. George Smith even concedes 92% of the time RP is on the money, and he's an atheist.

joe | December 31, 2007, 5:44pm | #

I'd like to once again remind everyone that Ron Paul is trying to win the REPUBLICAN nomination for president and is running the 30 second emotion pandering ad in IOWA.

Yes, Ron Paul is JUST ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN, despite the fact that you agree with him on issues. People who are "sophisticated" enough to by cynical towards professional politicians that everybody else supports ought to be sophisticated enough to recognize that agreeing with libertarians on issues doesn't tell us anything about a man's character.

James Anderson Merritt | December 31, 2007, 5:45pm | #

Ron quoted Ron Paul: "Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights..."

From other things he has said and written, I think Paul knows better than this, so I am very surprised to find it in his relatively recent writings. On the other hand, given that it was published less than a month after 9/11, perhaps I am not so surprised. Jingoistic fervor was pretty high then, and you had to be a Harry Browne or a Justin Raimondo to uphold the civil rights of "towelheads" and "camel jockeys" while the site of the Twin Towers was practically still smoldering. That said, I think this was nevertheless quite a gaffe for the self-described Champion of the Constitution. I wonder if and how he'll explain it.

Les | December 31, 2007, 5:50pm | #

Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights...

Can someone help me out here? Does the constitution say that only U.S. citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights?

Lost_In_Translation | December 31, 2007, 5:57pm | #

Yeah,

I knew Paul was going to do something like this, but it doesn't make me any more likely to vote for any of the other republicans (and voting for the democrats..i'd never do that in a primary)

Of course libertarians are always known for letting the best be the enemy of the good, so maybe this will kill the 4% that libs could contribute in NH.

bob | December 31, 2007, 5:58pm | #

Note: This is NOT a spoof...

NH REPUBLICANS: DON’T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS

CONCORD – New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

“Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.”

“The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.”

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 6:01pm | #

joe,

Agreed. The "immigration is irreconcilable with the welfare state trope" is even less applicable to student visas.

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 6:02pm | #

"trope" should be outside the quotes, dammit

Bhamba | December 31, 2007, 6:02pm | #

Can someone help me out here? Does the constitution say that only U.S. citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights?

The word "citizen" does not appear in the bill of rights. These 10 amendments frequently refer to the rights of "persons," in contrast to many parts of the constitution and later amendments (e.g. Amendment 11) which specifically mention "Citizens" in contrast to "persons".

There is probably court case that decided this, but I don't know it.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:04pm | #

Les,

People who enter the US illegally or overstay their visas are routinely deported without a trial by jury, so plainly they do not have all the constitutional rights that citizens do. However, habeas corpus protections are another matter, so I'm not sure there's an absolute answer to that question.

TBH, I'd have to see the context of that quote to see what Dr Paul meant.

MCW | December 31, 2007, 6:05pm | #

How can people who are "pro-freedom" seriously support someone who is anti-choice?

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:09pm | #

The second part of the quote, about people being here at the pleasure of the State Dept, indicates that he's merely saying that non-citizens have no constitutional protections against being deported. He's not saying they don't have constitutional protections against other penalties such as imprisonment and death.

TLB | December 31, 2007, 6:10pm | #

First of all, I'm not AlanDershowitz, but everyone in the U.S. has certain ConstitutionalRights, even IllegalAliens.

Second, the part of the 14thAmendment regarding BirthrightCitizenship was not originally designed (by the author of that part of it) to apply to foreigners. He said that explicitly.

Third, after much consideration, I've decided to no longer support Dr. Paul. I will throw my support to a real libertarian candidate, someone who realizes the wisdom of having completely open border where anyone - whether relative of Osama or former member of the BaaderMeinhof gang - can come and go as they please.

Anything less would not be truly libertarian.

I eagerly await the Coporate Welfare Queens at Reason changing their support to a true libertarian candidate.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:12pm | #

MCW, Dr Paul supports the states' freedom to choose their own abortion laws (or lack thereof). So, he is pro-choice in the true sense of the word, if not the jingoized one hijacked by pro-abortion types.

Paul | December 31, 2007, 6:14pm | #

I think we should just start referring to Iowa as "The Welfare State".

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 6:17pm | #

Bhamba, I believe that in the Beginning it was left to the states to define citizenship.

Lost_In_Translation | December 31, 2007, 6:17pm | #

Paul,

Not "Cornholia"?

Bhamba | December 31, 2007, 6:18pm | #

People who enter the US illegally or overstay their visas are routinely deported without a trial by jury

That is true, but being illegally present in the US is a civil, not a criminal, violation. The right of trial by jury is preserved only for criminal prosecutions (and for common law - not civil law - suits of more than twenty dollars). A deportation hearing is a civil law proceeding. Same as a hearing for a parking ticket, no jury required.

So this example does not distinguish citizens from non-citizens.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 6:19pm | #

Paul, I think California has already claimed the title of Welfare State.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 6:19pm | #

Lost wins the thread. Took me a minute, but it eventually sunk in.

Bill Woolsey | December 31, 2007, 6:27pm | #

Some of those commenting here apparently haven't watched the ad. It is pretty short.

The student visas from "terrorist nations" is the only new element. Secure the borders, no amnesty, no welfare for illegal aliens and end birthright citizenship is on the campaign website, has been in radio ads, and direct mailings to voters.

Raimando didn't like the cutback on student visas from "terrorist nations." I don't know the the current list of state sponsors of terrorism is what Paul has in mind.

It is interesting, however, that Paul took such a long time to come to an anti-immigration position. I thought those Mises Institute people had turned anti-immigrant almost from the start of the paleo-libertarian turn.

joe | December 31, 2007, 6:30pm | #

Oh, crimethink.

Dr Paul supports the states' freedom to choose their own abortion laws (or lack thereof). So, he is pro-choice in the true sense of the word, if not the jingoized one hijacked by pro-abortion types

"Choice" now refers to states and not individuals, when the issue is abortion?

How about "right" in the Second Amendment - can we apply that to states and not individuals, too?

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:30pm | #

Ron Paul's position is not an "anti-immigrant" position. This is as much a misrepresentation as calling his foreign policy "isolationist".

His position is anti-uncontrolled-immigration, and yes, I understand that is still contrary to the prevailing LP position on the issue.

sas | December 31, 2007, 6:31pm | #

I can handle some level of pandering, but there's a fucking *apostrophe* in VISAs... that is too much to bear.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2007, 6:31pm | #

"...after much consideration, I've decided to no longer support Dr. Paul."

Oh no! Lone Wolf pulled his support!

Now what's Ron Paul going to do?!

SIV | December 31, 2007, 6:34pm | #

These Ron Paul threads are hilarious.
People were upset with his evolution answer and now his immigration position. Ron Paul ain't the candidate for Atheism, Amnesty, and Anti-War under all circumstances.

The no student visas for terrorist nations is a brilliant bit of demagoguery on Paul's weakest position with potential Republican voters--the War on Terror.Essentially meaningless, as what is a Terrorist Nation? Does anyone here support visas for terrorist foreign students?

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 6:35pm | #

How about "right" in the Second Amendment - can we apply that to states and not individuals, too?

Which amendment was that abortion rights amendment? I've forgotten.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:37pm | #

joe,

Whatever. I'm really not concerned whether he's "pro-choice" on abortion any more than I expect him to be "pro-choice" on counterfeiting.

SIV | December 31, 2007, 6:37pm | #

How about "right" in the Second Amendment - can we apply that to states and not individuals, too?

joe,


You have to share your "Constitution" with us sometime. Is the Right to Abortion located near that "inalienable Right to Vote" ?

Lost_In_Translation | December 31, 2007, 6:37pm | #

sas,

there's an apostrophe when refering to VISA's yes, but not visas. Its not a proper noun and doesn't end in "s"

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 6:37pm | #

Ron Paul ain't the candidate for Atheism...

Oh yes he is!

No less than the King of Atheists has endorsed him. Well, at least if he was going to vote, Smith would vote for RP. :-)

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:38pm | #

::passes the abortion thread baton to TWC::

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2007, 6:39pm | #

Before the latest fiddling (or obliteration) of the LP platform, the abortion plank recognized that there were good libertarian arguments for both sides of the equation--now the platform reads to me like Pro-life libertarians can choose not to have an abortion if they don't want to.

I've seen a number of regulars around here, some vocal champions of Ron Paul, suggest that being Pro-Life was somehow inconsistent with the rest of Paul's libertarian values. Me? I don't read it that way. Still, even if you're a card carrying member of Planned Parenthood...

Any of you who thought Ron Paul was perfect should be entirely disillusioned by his Pro-Life and anti-illegal immigration stances, the rest of us should consider throwing our weight behind him anyway. ...even if he is only 87% right about everything.

SIV | December 31, 2007, 6:40pm | #

This is as good a time as any to remind you folks that "libertarianism" is a "far right" ideology.

Hell, even joe knows that.

joe | December 31, 2007, 6:41pm | #

Banning student visas is not "anti-uncontrolled-immigration," crimethink. By definition, people who are here on visas are legal and subject to control.

SIV,

Does anyone here support visas for terrorist foreign students? I think most people here support making the decision about whether someone is a terrorist on an individual basis, not what country they come from. Paul's language smacks of the anti-Japanese immigration laws in the 1800s.

TWC, SIV,

You could, you know, stretch yourself and try to figure out what my point was.

joe | December 31, 2007, 6:43pm | #

Is Ireland a terrorist nation?

How about Iraq, in 2007?

imp | December 31, 2007, 6:43pm | #

He'll stop the Iraq War, keep us from bombing Iran, decriminalize drug use, restore habeas corpus, ban torture, cut taxes, balance the budget, and stop the Fed from wrecking the economy.

But student visas -- OMG! I can't support him now!

joshua corning | December 31, 2007, 6:44pm | #

Which, once again, has nothing whatsoever to do with Iranian 18-year-olds paying full tuition at GWU to get a business degree.

Full tuition my ass. Iranian or Nebraskan, everyone who pays taxes is paying for these kids higher education

Brandybuck | December 31, 2007, 6:45pm | #

Can someone help me out here? Does the constitution say that only U.S. citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights?

Some parts of the Bill of Rights refers to "persons", and others to "the people". I had always assumed that "the people" referred to citizens of the several states, while "persons" referred to anyone. Thus, the Federal government could deny non-citizens the right to own firefarms, but not the right to due process.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 6:49pm | #

All I can say is that "Firefarm" would be one hell of a good name for a death metal band.

NoStar | December 31, 2007, 7:27pm | #

Great Ad! It might even win back for Ron Paul the Eric Dondero vote after that stalwart of libertarian priciples, Rudy the G, drops out of the race for "health reasons."

Douglas Gray | December 31, 2007, 7:27pm | #

The media seems to be glossing over the fact that Huckabee made the biggest gaff of all; he said that next to Mexico, Pakistan has the most illegal immigrants. Plus, he didn't actually retract it...talk about trying to pander and blowing it........poor guy

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 7:28pm | #

sas, you might enjoy Bob the Angry Flower's apostrophe rants:

http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
http://www.angryflower.com/destro.html

Edward | December 31, 2007, 7:40pm | #

Uh, even if Ron Paul has an anti-immigrant, racist message, lies about the constitution, opposes gay rights, and appeals broadly to Nazis, he is the best candidate libertarians have. SEND MORE MONEY!

Tom Walls | December 31, 2007, 7:45pm | #

I know. No one proofed the damned thing.



> I can handle some level of pandering, but there's a fucking *apostrophe* in VISAs... that is too much to bear.

Kolohe | December 31, 2007, 7:46pm | #

I thought the SC veteran's mailing was a bit misleading, but overall OK; so I defended it.

I thought the evolution/I.D views were incorrect, but otherwise immaterial.

And I generally disagreed with his aversion to the fiat money, federal reserve, and the structure of the modern financial system, as well as the magnitude of his isolationism, but agreed that we probably need a change of direction in key areas on these issues.

This ad, however, represents something beyond the pale. It is the antithesis of what America stands for. A person who is drawing from the tradition of 19th century liberalism should repudiate this sort of thinking, not embrace it.

I am disappointed I donated money to his campaign. I was going to give some extra after the new year, but not anymore.

It appears Edward and Guy Montag were right. What a waste of almost 30 million dollars.

Ken Shultz | December 31, 2007, 7:55pm | #

Did he say anything about driver's licenses or whether prison inmates should be allowed to work out?

...'cause the last guy I voted for was against both.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 7:56pm | #

Here is what I said when it was brought up on another thread:

"No more student visas from terrorist nations" stands against his rhetoric of "lets talk to people, trade with them, etc" as opposed to "bomb them and interfere with them". But I think he's trying to appeal to a certain segment of the republican base. I do not like it though. Otherwise it is a good ad that has a "Tancredo" feel to it (despite the fact that I despise Tancredo).

While Paul is certainly trying to pull in some of the repub voters (which is okay for me), he may be accused of being self-contradictory. I agree with Raimondo in his disgust by the segment. But, hey, this is politics, baby! Play it, and play it dirty.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 7:57pm | #

"This is as good a time as any to remind you folks that "libertarianism" is a "far right" ideology."

Nuts, nuts, again nuts. Only in SIV's imaginary world. Note the sharing of the root in the two words liberal and libertarian. Conservatives, from Burke to Kirk stress authority.

I don't deny that the libertarian movement and the conservative movement, as far as the think tanks and such that are supposed to lead such movements, are close. Of course that is more due to the same vested interests funding the two groups (conservatism is about protecting authority and vested interests, and in the U.S., unlike many other nations, that has been the wealthy, and libertarian principles have often been used to protect the wealthy [we can debate how correct that usage was]).

A few weeks ago the Washington Post had an article about the "Bacchus" type parties Reason throws. Imagine Richard Neuhaus, Orrin Hatch or Pat Robertson at such a party. That's conservatism for ya. Yuck.

Eric Dondero | December 31, 2007, 7:58pm | #

Why are any of you all surprised at this?

Ron Paul has been doing this for 10 years here in Texas Congressional District 14. Only he does it on the Military front.

He talks non-intervention to a national audience, and back home here in Angleton, and Lake Jackson, and super conservative Victoria it's all Support the Troops, Fight Terrorism, Get more Money for Veteran's Programs.

I've been screaming this at the top of my lungs to you all for months now. And every God-damned one of you has badmouthed me, cussed me, and called me every name in the book.

Now, you see I've been right all along.

You can offer your apologies here at H&R or email them to me personally at [e-mail]

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 7:58pm | #

A person who is drawing from the tradition of 19th century liberalism should repudiate this sort of thinking, not embrace it.

Transcript of the ad:

For generations, Lady Liberty welcomed immigrants who came here legally, followed the rules, and led productive lives. Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders, overwhelm our hospitals, schools, and social services. Ron Paul wants border security now. Physically secure the border, no amnesty, no welfare to illegal aliens, end birthright citizenship, no more student VISA's from terrorist nations. Standing up for the rule of law, Ron Paul for President.

So, what part of this is in conflict with classical liberalism?

Eric Dondero | December 31, 2007, 8:00pm | #

BTW, if you all haven't heard yet, hours ago, the Huck Monster just imploded. He had a major Howard Dean moment. It's laughable. Even funnier than Dean screaming at the top of his lungs in 2004.

I won't spoil it for you. YouTube it.

His campaign has just ended. Thankfully!

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:02pm | #

Dondero,

There's no conflict between a non-interventionist foreign policy and having a strong military, let alone supporting our troops and taking care of veterans.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 8:02pm | #

Who do you think is having more of a good time at a Reason party, leftie D'inesh D'souza or leftie Christopher Hitchens?

Are their conservatives in the US not dominated by either orthodox religion or militarism? And could you imagine any two things MORE antithetical to libertarianism?

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:03pm | #

His campaign has just ended. Thankfully!

I agree with you on this one. ;-)

Eric Dondero | December 31, 2007, 8:04pm | #

BTW, Paul has done the same thing with George Bush.

In 1996, 97, 98, when Bush was useful to Paul he was singing his praises. Hanging his photo in the entrance to the Congressional office. Attending his fundraisers and introducing him as "the next President of the United States."

Then, when he's got a secure House seat, and he finds he can raise more money and get more media attention by bashing Bush, well, what's he do?

Becomes a Bush basher of course.

Remember Paul Tsongas and that stuffy animal he used to hold up? That's Ron Paul.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 8:05pm | #

"He talks non-intervention to a national audience, and back home here in Angleton, and Lake Jackson, and super conservative Victoria it's all Support the Troops, Fight Terrorism, Get more Money for Veteran's Programs."

Uhh, I'm not sure that any of these is contradictory with non-intervention...You can fight terrorism without intervention in other nations (in fact many of us think you fight it better that way), and any state, even one of non-intervention would have a military which we would want to support and take care of after their service...

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 8:07pm | #

I prefer Huck and his religious foolishness to Romney's fakery (and equal though insincere religious foolishness). He's like a slim verion of William Jennings Bryant...

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:08pm | #

Dondero,

You think that had something to do with Bush talking about a humble foreign policy and no nation building in 2000...and then turning into King Intervention once he got elected?

No, you're right. Ron Paul is a cold, calculating politician, always doing whatever it takes to raise money and get votes.

Justin Raimondo | December 31, 2007, 8:09pm | #

Since David cited my blog post, I should probably make clear that my critique of the ad is limited to the very last segment, which specifically mentions the student visa issue in the context of the "terrorist nations" concept.

There are two problems with it: first, it imposes collective punishment on an entire class of individuals on account of their nationality. This is not subjecting Saudis to special security checks, or even limiting the numbers of applicants -- it is a blanket ban. Aside from being grossly unlibertarian, it's just plain mean.

Secondly, and most surprisingly, Paul is allowing the US Department of State -- or whomever in the government gets to decide these things at any given moment -- to define "terrorist state." If he abides by this decision in the realm of domestic policy, then he effectively concedes it to the government in the conduct of our foreign policy. So, why not invade Iran? After all, they're a "terrorist state," aren't they?

As for the entirely separate question of illegal immigration, as opposed to students who apply for visas so they can legally travel to the United States, I'm with Ron 100 percent. Secure the borders. Stop illegal immigration. No amnesty.

Those who argue that this is a good sort of opportunism are plain wrong. This "terrorist nation" business -- which hits the viewer over the head at the end -- alienates those brought in by his antiwar message. It probably loses more votes than it gains

Wazoo | December 31, 2007, 8:09pm | #

"Terrorist nations". That's a dumb phrase, and Paul surely knows it. It's almost as if the annoying capitals and the wayward apostrophe are a dog-whistle assurance to the rest of us: "Y'know, you got to do what you got to do"

Elemenope | December 31, 2007, 8:10pm | #

While I haven't exactly fallen off the RP wagon, I have to say this irritated me more than anything else thus far. Made me think twice.

James Anderson Merritt | December 31, 2007, 8:12pm | #

The Constitution speaks on some occasions of "the right of the people," and on others of the rights of citizens. These phrases are generally taken to refer to individuals from the category of "'we the people, of the United States."

On still other occasions, the Constitution forbids the government to do something, e.g., "Congress shall make no law...," "warrants shall not issue...," etc.

Finally, the Constitution sometimes speaks of persons, perhaps of a specific type, e.g., "the accused," etc.

Only in the cases when "citizens" or "the people" are mentioned, can one argue credibly that the Constitution recognizes a right for citizens but not necessarily for everyone.

Interestingly, the right to keep and bear arms seems to be one of those cases. Foreigners leave your firearms at the coin-operated lockers we have provided at the legal points/ports of entry!! :-)

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:13pm | #

Secondly, and most surprisingly, Paul is allowing the US Department of State -- or whomever in the government gets to decide these things at any given moment -- to define "terrorist state." If he abides by this decision in the realm of domestic policy, then he effectively concedes it to the government in the conduct of our foreign policy. So, why not invade Iran? After all, they're a "terrorist state," aren't they?

This doesn't make any sense, even as slippery-slope arguments go. Even if a given nation really is a "terrorist state", I doubt Dr Paul would support invading them unless they attack us. There's a big difference between denying visas to a country's citizens and invading them!

Justin Raimondo | December 31, 2007, 8:14pm | #

Oh yes, and Weigel's throwing in the abortion issue is just a left-libertarian hobbyhorse. Pro-life libertarians are a part of the broader movement, and the attempt to tie this in with the student visa issue makes no sense, except as cultural marker. Paul is pushing a lifestyle, he's pushing an ideology: contra Reason, there is a big difference.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:14pm | #

OK, I changed my mind.

As someone with my kind of name, initially on a student visa, I declare: While I do not like the bit about student visas in the ad, hey I am OK with it. He did not define which nation he considers terrorist. He may not even consider Iran (or any other country) a terrorist nation. So while he may claim that is his policy, he may not declare any nation terrorist (which, according to him, that is not even within the authority of the president-- remember "sanctions is a form of a declaration of war"?), then no student visas will ever be denied. Simple. Playing with words and logic? At least he does it cleanly unlike other politicians. Not self-contradictory a bit. I have no problem with it. Good ad. Go Ron Paul!

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:16pm | #

I prefer Huck and his religious foolishness to Romney's fakery (and equal though insincere religious foolishness).

I disagree. Given that both of them are advocating awful policies, I'd choose the one who isn't really sincere over the one who is.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 8:17pm | #

Most frequent visitors to this site know that while I respect Paul for his infusion of ideological variation into the campaign and his courage in many moments, I would never vote for the guy in 2008.

Having said that, c'mon guys, you knew Paul varied from pure libertarianism on immigration, and you know this is an area that finds him in agreement with a large amount of GOP voters (whom he does have to woo, you know?), so you really have to forgive this bit of hyperbole here. The man is running a campaign not a debating society or philosophical society.

No diss to Justin, whose articles in American Conservative I greatly enjoyed when I was a subscriber.

Lost_In_Translation | December 31, 2007, 8:18pm | #

I'm glad Dondero worked up the nerve to come back here. I missed his babbling inanity, its a nice white noise.

Oh, and Justin R, you might be right about it losing more votes than it gained...if Paul's supporters had somewhere else to go. So far, if you like low taxes and a humble foreign policy, it's Paul's way or the highway for this race.

David E. Gallaher | December 31, 2007, 8:18pm | #

The perfect is the enemy of the pretty good.

The welfare state is the enemy of immigration.

As an absolutist only satisfied by the perfect, let immigration, illegal and otherwise, continue until we have abolished the welfare state.

Ron Paul be damned!
Politics are no purer than the adventures of the Spears sisters.
(Not that I'm seeking purity.)

Ruthless

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:18pm | #

Paul is pushing a lifestyle, he's pushing an ideology: contra Reason, there is a big difference.

I'm pretty sure there's supposed to be a "not" in there someplace, but I'm not sure where...

Justin Raimondo | December 31, 2007, 8:19pm | #

I don't think anyone should think twice about supporting Ron Paul for President. Clearly, this is a relatively minor glitch: the machine is still humming, however, and it's the only transportation in sight. Get on board, but not unthinkingly: I had to go public because I personally know students from "terrorist countries" who wouldn't harm a fly, despise Osama, and love America.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 8:19pm | #

crimethink-I'd give the Huckster points for consistency over Flipper Romney. I think sincerity means something, even if it is sincerity for a wrong cause...

Plus, I think Romney will every bit be bound by his crazy insincere promises as Huckie...

Col DuBois | December 31, 2007, 8:21pm | #

Ruthless:

Purity is only valuable to the one who corrupts it. Why else would we make such a big deal with white dresses before wedding nights?

Justin Rainondo | December 31, 2007, 8:22pm | #

Right: that should be "Paul is NOT pushing a lifestyle, he's pushing an ideology."

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:24pm | #

"Justin" (I am still not sure if it is really you, though you certainly sound like Justin :-) ):

I had to go public because I personally know students from "terrorist countries" who wouldn't harm a fly, despise Osama, and love America.

You have one right here! E-mail me and I can send you proof as to how much I adore this country and how I have helped Paul directly (it may be closer to your headquarters than you realize ;-) )

David E. Gallaher | December 31, 2007, 8:24pm | #

" I'm with Ron 100 percent. Secure the borders. Stop illegal immigration. No amnesty. "

Justin said the above.

Today is a day of shocking declarations.

Ruthless

P.S. Borders are unlibertarian.

cirmethink | December 31, 2007, 8:25pm | #

MNG,

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Despite my slight age, I've become jaded enough to see that there are worse things than hypocrisy and corruption.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:26pm | #

MNG- Have you heard Huck in an NPR interview on Fresh Air from back in the summer? Compare that to when he talks to social cons in a private setting. 180 degrees out of sync. The gy is the most dishonest of politicians, that is especially true because he shamelessly uses the pulpit to reach his goals. Not honest!

crw | December 31, 2007, 8:28pm | #

Yeah, that's a great idea. Lets prevent young people in nations hostile to America from gaining first hand experience of America. We would be way better off if their only knowledge of America came from anti-Western government and religious propaganda.

Nice to see all apologists coming out of the woodwork yet again. C'mon guys. You can admit it. Your candidate is not the second coming of Libertarian Jesus. He's a politician. Yes, he's principled, but his principles mainly seem to be fringe right anti-elitism. Between his stance on evolution and now this...well, lets just say as an educated up and coming member of the elite, I am off put.

But, outside of economics, Pauls arguments aren't exactly libertarian. They are conservative arguments, based on strict reading of the Constitution and reverence for the founding fathers. Paul is only libertarian because he's so far right on his reading of the Constitution to converge with libertarians on most issues. But I've seen little to suggest he supports bedrock libertarian philosophy outside of economics.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 8:30pm | #

Sorry, have not read a single post. But I must ask, how is this "pandering" since it has been his firm position all of the time? Remember the jokes about "mutant sharks with freaking lasers on their heads" at the border jokes rooted in his border policy?

Why the big editorial fit about something he has been saying all along that has finally made it into a commercial? Even though I am not a supporter of Dr. Paul I can say that he is a straight-up honest guy about his beliefs and has not been shading them in the slightest, that I can see.

Is the issue that he finally put something in an ad that the reason staff (other than Nick, who mentioned this deal months ago) really can not accept and now must act like they never heard of it?

Johncjackson the 3rd | December 31, 2007, 8:30pm | #

Have you ever thought that maybe Ron Paul really believes the social-con stuff and he is actually pandering to US ( libertarians)?

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:32pm | #

To the male members of the forum: Remember, if you turn your back on Ron Paul, you turn your back on Donna D'Errico.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 8:37pm | #

Dave,

“I think that’s part of the freedom message,” Paul told me. “You always want to broaden the base, and in this area, in this state, you want to appeal to social conservatives without sacrificing any principles.”

Wink, wink.

Are the winks at the people who stupidly think that Dr. Paul is "pro-life" or are the stupid ones the "pro-murder" crowd who think he is just pandering?

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:38pm | #

crimethnk- Geee... is that a cross behind Donna D'Errico? Brings back memories of Huck's Christmas ad! More subliminal messages ;-)

Daniel Reeves | December 31, 2007, 8:39pm | #

Surely this is not your first election, folks! American politics is never about, "who is best." It's about, "who isn't worst." And Ron Paul sure isn't worst. He's still the least worst. So keep your hopes up as must as American pessimistic politics will allow you to!

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:40pm | #

What just happened, the Paul o meter just rised by $250k!

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:40pm | #

Have you ever thought that maybe Ron Paul really believes the social-con stuff and he is actually pandering to US ( libertarians)?

Considering the relative numbers of socio-cons and libertarians in the GOP, he would be a complete idiot to pander to the latter. There's just nothing to gain.

SIV | December 31, 2007, 8:42pm | #

Those who argue that this is a good sort of opportunism are plain wrong. This "terrorist nation" business -- which hits the viewer over the head at the end -- alienates those brought in by his antiwar message. It probably loses more votes than it gains

I disagree.My initial hesitancy to support Ron Paul was based solely on his foreign policy/military positions.I agree with him on nearly every other issue.Ron Paul needs more tough talk on terror.Americans and the world need to know that, though he is opposed to interventionism, we will swiftly destroy anyone who fucks with us. Ron Paul's earlier statement at the Taft (?) dinner in Washington that we don't want war but if necessary, declare it, get in and then get out as soon as possible is the classic tradition of both the "Old Right" and Jacksonian Democrats in America and was quite reassuring.

The deliberate vagueness of "No terrorist student visas" helps dispel the "pacifist" image while addressing immigration.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:43pm | #

Considering the relative numbers of socio-cons and libertarians in the GOP, he would be a complete idiot to pander to the latter. There's just nothing to gain.

Well, duuuh! Plus, there's the voting record!

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:43pm | #

Ali,

Holy cow, you're right! Two crosses, in fact!

For some reason, the first time I watched it, I wasn't looking at the background. I was looking at her...necklace. Yes, her necklace!

David E. Gallaher | December 31, 2007, 8:44pm | #

crimethink,
Thanks for your link reminding me where I should be instead of here.
Happy New Year ever body!

Justin,
Borders are unlibertarian.

Ruthless

Ali | December 31, 2007, 8:44pm | #

SIV- Agreed!

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 8:48pm | #

Ruthless,

Without borders, we wouldn't have maps. Without maps, we wouldn't have geography. Without geography, we wouldn't have studies showing that Americans are terrible at it. Without studies showing Americans are geographically illiterate, we wouldn't have this.

alan | December 31, 2007, 8:50pm | #

P.S. Borders are unlibertarian.

Borders are a defining difference between Minarchist and Anarco-Capitalist.

Still, I didn't care for that ad in the least. The image of 'wetbacks' crossing, and as Justin pointed out, the appeal to collectivist guilt were not things that make me shout, 'Go, Ron Paul, go.'

However, I am not an Idealist, and recognize it for what is is, politics. I can't say that if I was in Paul's shoes, I would run things in a cleaner fashion, and it would take a hell of a lot more than this to deter me from forgetting the love of the welfare/warfare state so central to the other bulls on parade.

Like any other political season I recommend sitting back with a bottle of Southern Comfort until the damn thing is over.

SIV | December 31, 2007, 8:54pm | #

Have you ever thought that maybe Ron Paul really believes the social-con stuff YES and he is actually pandering to US ( libertarians)?NO

There are many Americans who are "both" and significant numbers of "either" who are passionate about our liberty.

Franklin Harris | December 31, 2007, 8:57pm | #

I thought those Mises Institute people had turned anti-immigrant almost from the start of the paleo-libertarian turn.

Most high-profile anti-immigration libertarians are probably affiliated with the Mises Institute, but not all libertarians affiliated with LvMI are anti-immigration. Walter Block, for example, took up the pro-immigration side in a special immigration issue of the "Journal of Libertarian Studies."

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:01pm | #

Lemme get this 'straight', if that term is acceptable here before Dr. Paul uses it in an ad.

All of the Paulaholics who were ranting for months that he is the "real deal" and no BS, the REAL DEAL are now saying 'well, ya know, it is an election and you have to say stuff to get elected and you have to say other stuff to get past the Republican primary . . .

Let's just fast rewind to James Earl Carter, Jr. swearing that he would continue developing the B1 bomber and then cutting it as soon as he got into office? Is this the same thing? An 'honest' bullshitter?

John C. Randolph | December 31, 2007, 9:01pm | #

"Now, you see I've been right all along."

I see quite the opposite, dunderhead.

There is no inconsistency between being a non-interventionist, and also demanding that veterans be given the benefits they've been promised. Want to try again? It's so much fun watching you blither.

-jcr

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:08pm | #

I forgot, this is the Carter presidency all over again played out in a campaign. Carter expelled all Iranian student visa holders just because some of them were protesting in front of the White House during the hostage situation. Around the time he invaded Iran without a "declairation of war" (as if that were needed).

He also banned dissent against him in front of the White House.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 9:10pm | #

Wait a minute. "Eric Dondero" and "Donna D'Errico" only differ by 1.5 letters.

Now that's creepy.

jimmy smith | December 31, 2007, 9:10pm | #

Love the ad. At least my kids won't have to compete against those students from terrorist nations to get into college,if Ron is elected. Oh, I forgot, now they'll have to do it on their own. Shit !!

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:13pm | #

Guy, our favorite tool.

Did your mom blow Carter or something? You really hate that guy...I can't imagine someone 30 years later saying "damn candidate x, he cut funding for defense project x that he promised to support on the campaign!" Did you work on the B-1 assembly line (under project Bootstrap perhaps?).

Paul can be the most visible reliably libertarian candidate in decades (maybe ever) and still hold a couple of views that deviate from the libertarian line. If he then touts such deviations, ones that will help him (I suspect always have helped him) get elected it hardly makes him a "honest hullshitter."

joe | December 31, 2007, 9:15pm | #

I've seen Eric Dondero throw a lot of guff at Ron Paul, but I don't recall him ever having anything to say about Paul scapegoating people from Middle Eastern nations or applying the "terrorist" label with too broad a brush. His complaints have been quite the opposite, actually.

Justin Raimondo is kicking ass and taking names, as usual.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:16pm | #

"Carter expelled all Iranian student visa holders just because some of them were protesting in front of the White House during the hostage situation. Around the time he invaded Iran without a "declairation of war" (as if that were needed)."

It occurs to me that he expelled them as a "weapon" against the nation that was fucking with us at the time.

Silly to think before you, know, INVADE another country you should get a declaration of war...

David E. Gallaher | December 31, 2007, 9:16pm | #

Borders are the enemy of the "good."

Okay, I'm really gone this time. See youse in 2008.

Ruthless

SIV | December 31, 2007, 9:19pm | #

All of the Paulaholics who were ranting for months that he is the "real deal" and no BS, the REAL DEAL are now saying 'well, ya know, it is an election and you have to say stuff to get elected and you have to say other stuff to get past the Republican primary . . .

Paul is the REAL DEAL. There are a lot of his supporters who just aren't comfortable with the fact that libertarianism IS a far right ideology.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:19pm | #

MNG,

All of your attempts at flattery aside, where was I inaccurate?

Try reading what I wrote and responding to that without a little girlie fit, k?

B1 point, sorry if I am not bright enough to simplify this for you, is that Governor Carter swore that he would continue it. Had something to do with countering a Soviet threat. Sorry to offend your Socialist sensibilities that they are constructed by non-state-owned firms. Anyway, as soon as he got in office he reniged on that and did his damdest to surrender us to the Soviets.

On Dr. Paul's views, again, try reading what I wrote rather than having some Pavlocian reaction to who made the post.

This is my last bother with you.

alan | December 31, 2007, 9:21pm | #

All of the Paulaholics who were ranting for months that he is the "real deal" and no BS, the REAL DEAL are now saying 'well, ya know, it is an election and you have to say stuff to get elected and you have to say other stuff to get past the Republican primary . . .


When other candidates actually have standards that you can hold them to maybe then you will have a point.

Graphite | December 31, 2007, 9:24pm | #

I thought we were supposed to thank Gerald Ford for Project: Bootstrap.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:25pm | #

When other candidates actually have standards that you can hold them to maybe then you will have a point.

You seem to have missed the point that Dr. Paul was about this all along and his unsolicited droids are all shocked about it.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:25pm | #

Wait a minute. "Eric Dondero" and "Donna D'Errico" only differ by 1.5 letters.

Now that's creepy.

I have never heard of her before your post, but at first I thought you were poking fun at Eric by varying his name!

joe | December 31, 2007, 9:25pm | #

Carter was right about the B-1. We'd have been better off going right from the B-52 to the B-2. Big, clumsy, balky things. Think they'll still be flying fifty years after they were built, Guy?

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:26pm | #

Guy
I did respond to what you "said" (in a Turrets fit I guess).

Only a loon would rave against a candidate 30 years later for promising to continue funding of a specific defense project and then not following up. That was kinda my point...


As you offered no counter to my comments on Paul, I'll repeat them on the premise that with enough practice even you can read the comments and make sense of them...

"Paul can be the most visible reliably libertarian candidate in decades (maybe ever) and still hold a couple of views that deviate from the libertarian line. If he then touts such deviations, ones that will help him (I suspect always have helped him) get elected it hardly makes him a "honest hullshitter.""

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:27pm | #

Love the ad. At least my kids won't have to compete against those students from terrorist nations to get into college,if Ron is elected. Oh, I forgot, now they'll have to do it on their own. Shit !!

Most of these students usually come at their own costs. Rarely do they benefit from any scholarships, etc. At the grad level, it is different, but is simply supply and demand for the best who could do the job. America wins. Plus, some Americans aren't willing to do the difficult stuff that usually does not pay as much as they get paid without a PhD.

bandero | December 31, 2007, 9:28pm | #

I must say I'm quite disappointed. It would have been better to lose with honor, rather than lose on a note of desperation.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:28pm | #

oh, jimmy, those who actually take American students' opportunities are actually sons and daughters of illegal immigrants who end up benefit from state funds, not legals on students visas.

alan | December 31, 2007, 9:28pm | #

Hey Guy,

I'm a wee mad at you for bringing up Carter. I spent a fair amount of money on substances to help me forget the man ever existed(and, hell, on the honky side of my family, he is a distant relative).

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 9:29pm | #

I don't support Dr Paul because he shoots straight, I support him because of the policies he advocates...and I think that's true of the vast, vast majority of Paul supporters. I mean, I think John McCain is usually sincere in what he says, but since his policies are absolutely awful, I don't support him.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:31pm | #

Is Dr. Paul going to rid us of federal student loans and grants with the stroke of his magic Skillcraft (and the Skillcraft factories too)? Just like he will abolish the IRS, Department of Education and the NEA?

Well, riding us of terrorist immigrants is a start and I hope that is real, rather than the Paualholic musings here.

SIV | December 31, 2007, 9:31pm | #

MNG,

Jimmy Carter lied about marijuana decrim and GAVE AWAY OUR FUCKING CANAL !!!!!!!!

He makes Bill Clinton and Warren J Harding look good by comparison

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:35pm | #

Well, riding us of terrorist immigrants is a start and I hope that is real, rather than the Paualholic musings here.

"Terrorist immigrants"? Plus it is "ridding" and not "riding". Do you "ride" immigrants?

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 9:35pm | #

Plus, some Americans aren't willing to do the difficult stuff that usually does not pay as much as they get paid without a PhD.

Are you saying that there are JobsAmericansWon'tDo at both ends of the skill spectrum? ;-)

Anyhow, a graduate admissions officer at Purdue pissed me off a few weeks ago by commenting that my Math GRE scores were "very good", pausing, and adding, "for an American, at least." Maybe I should oppose student visas out of self-interest!

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:37pm | #

He had the balls to say the right thing about marijuana decrim and then backed down realizing it was politically untenable thanks to social conservatives...Yeah, he's evil.

OUR CANAL happens to be in, well, Panama...

I'll paraphrase a quote about Carter: whenever a President leaves office having not f*cked up the Constitution and not involving us in any major war, I think he's been a success.

Harding, Jesus Christ...

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:38pm | #

crimethink,Wouldn't that be "rent seeking"?

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:39pm | #

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:41pm | #

Are you saying that there are JobsAmericansWon'tDo at both ends of the skill spectrum? ;-)


OH YES!

Based on the remainder of your post, I guess you know exactly what I am talking about. (note: I spent some time down the highway West of Purdue, and got my PhD from NNE of Purdue... both cases not in IN ;-) ... any guesses?)

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:42pm | #

SIV,

At least Carter was unpopular enough with his own overwhelming majority in both houses to not get the windfall profits tax passed. Um, wait, did he get that through too? That horror of our history is still a blur.

He did force businesses to reset thermostats to 68 in the winter and 72 in the summer (in real degrees, not KKKanidan degrees).

alan | December 31, 2007, 9:42pm | #

what the hell is wrong with Warren J Harding? At the near top of my list of greats, along with Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge.

Oh, Tea Pot Dome, whatever.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:42pm | #

Remember that it is the school that requests visas for students. The Fed Gov intervenes only if there are concerns. It is a merit based system.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 9:47pm | #

Ali,

I'm guessing Michigan State, another place I'm applying to.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:48pm | #

Yeah Alan, putting his buddies in positions to rob the government of money that taxpayers paid (or were robbed of according to some here) was a great record of Harding's!

SIV | December 31, 2007, 9:48pm | #

OUR CANAL happens to be in, well, Panama...

Well, now it is.

From 1903 to 1979 the territory was controlled by the United States of America, which had built and financed the canal's construction.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:48pm | #

Is Dr. Paul going to get rid of Selective Service along with the IRS and ILLIGAL immigrants?

IIRC, Selective Servise is something that Carter was able to bring back with his same-party Congress, or was that something Regan brough back through a hostile Congress?

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:50pm | #

SIV,

Are you truncating that history post-Columbia thingie?

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 9:52pm | #

::passes the abortion thread baton to TWC::

The DRINKING WINE thread you mean. LOL.

We're doing a prime rib and drinking a an '03 Dry Creek Meritage, damn.

That's well worth not being aborted.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:52pm | #

crimethink- MSU is great, but they are the enemy ;-)!

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:54pm | #

crimethink- MSU is great, but they are the enemy ;-)!

... like every other Big 10 school except my alma mater.

alan | December 31, 2007, 9:55pm | #

Remember that it is the school that requests visas for students. The Fed Gov intervenes only if there are concerns. It is a merit based system.

I respect what you have accomplished within the system, but there are many more factors that go on behind the curtains than just creating a fair, merit based system.

Often, the American, entrepreneurial pursuit of happiness comes in conflict with corporate goals of obtaining middle managers who display
no discontent and wont buck the system in their pursuit of consolidation.

Kolohe | December 31, 2007, 9:55pm | #

For generations, Lady Liberty welcomed immigrants who came here legally, followed the rules, and led productive lives. Today, illegal immigrants violate our borders, overwhelm our hospitals, schools, and social services. Ron Paul wants border security now. Physically secure the border, no amnesty, no welfare to illegal aliens, end birthright citizenship, no more student VISA's from terrorist nations. Standing up for the rule of law, Ron Paul for President.

So, what part of this is in conflict with classical liberalism?

1) Everything after the word "today" sounds like it's an updated version of a No-Nothing pamplet

2) A cursory check seems to confirm that there was no such thing a illegal immigration until the twentieth century, with one exception - would a nineteenth century liberal have approved of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882?
(Citizenship was another mater, restricting citizenship from non-white people was in effect since 1790)

3) I could be grossly incorrect in conflating my views with classical liberalism, which I have always thought of as congruent. Another quick check shows that the Know-nothings were by and large the forerunners of the Republican party.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 9:55pm | #

Heh, so it's Michigan. Aren't they just plain NE of Purdue, not NNE? Big Blue and An Ohio State University are actually the only Big10 schools I didn't apply to.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:55pm | #

Little known Panama Canal fact: The eastern end is in the Pacific and the western end is in the Atlantic. The canal runs almost straight north/south.

A party from a Columbus expidition landed near the current Panama Canal location and were told by the locala tha there was another ocean on the other side, but it was not investigated.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:58pm | #

Heh, so it's Michigan. Aren't they just plain NE of Purdue, not NNE? Big Blue and An Ohio State University are actually the only Big10 schools I didn't apply to.

Oh, yah, may be. The geography now escapes me.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:59pm | #

"Little known Panama Canal fact: The eastern end is in the Pacific and the western end is in the Atlantic. The canal runs almost straight north/south."

yeah, and none of it is in the United States, dumbass.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 9:59pm | #

Kolohe,

Were the "know-nothings" the Democrats of the 1920s and the Dixiecrats of post WWII?

Ali | December 31, 2007, 9:59pm | #

Little known Panama Canal fact: The eastern end is in the Pacific and the western end is in the Atlantic. The canal runs almost straight north/south.

Oh, I knew that!

Guy Montag (regardless of any disagreements, seriously I am trying to make nice with you and be friends), quiz for you:

Other than Alaska, there are exactly 3 US pieces of land that you can only reach by land through Canada. Can you name all three?

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 10:01pm | #

"Were the "know-nothings" the Democrats of the 1920s and the Dixiecrats of post WWII?"
And who became the GOP of today?

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:03pm | #

Other than Alaska, there are exactly 3 US pieces of land that you can only reach by land through Canada. Can you name all three?

And bridges don't count since one of the three is connected by a bridge I believe.

Anybody?

alan | December 31, 2007, 10:04pm | #

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 9:48pm | #
Yeah Alan, putting his buddies in positions to rob the government of money that taxpayers paid (or were robbed of according to some here) was a great record of Harding's!

I have a soft spot for a long dead crook. I'm only human, man.

prolefeed | December 31, 2007, 10:04pm | #

Haven't read through the last 140+ posts yet, but in case people are still hating on Ron Paul, we bring you this SPECIAL NEWS FLASH:

* Cue trumpets on Teh Telescreens, ala Orwell's 1984 *

1) Ron Paul has been, for many years now, kind of a dick about immigration.

2) He has not tried to hide this.

3) This is part of the 10% unlibertarian stuff reflected in his 90% libertarian rating by the Republican Liberty Caucus website, the highest rating of any member of congress, or governor, or any other national figure.

4) The Republican primary voters in Iowa are kind of dicks about immigration, and this ad will resonate with them.

5) Ron Paul thinks he can WIN, or do very well in Iowa, by emphasizing this dickish aspect.

6) Ron Paul is a professional politician who wants to WIN and be your president.

7) Did I mention WINNING? OHNOES, libertarians aren't used to that kind of thing. WHATWILLWEDO? (Runs, screaming in panic at this horrible, horrible good news.)


You may now return to your regularly scheduled Two Minute Hate, already in progress.

"The complete and final elimination of Goldsteinism! The ..."

* Crowd throws objects at hated video of Goldstein on telescreens, screaming in rage *

SIV | December 31, 2007, 10:05pm | #

Guy I just C@Ped the part about it being US Territory and that we designed,paid for and built it. Fucking lefties always claim we are Imperialist and Colonialist. Like so much of America our tiny forays into such things was Exceptional.

Colombia is in South America Panama is in the North so hey the split makes sense!

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 10:05pm | #

Ali,

I may be reading your question incorrectly. The only "pieces" of the USA that I know of that join Canada by land are the "lower 48" and Alaska. The State of Hawaii and the Territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands must be reached by sea or air from Canada.

If I had my way, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Mexico and Russia would solve your question ;)

SIV,

Someone in another comment thinks SIV means Montag, or something.

asdf | December 31, 2007, 10:07pm | #

joe-

"Terrorist nations?"

Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and all those "ex-Jordanians"(Paleswinians) who willingly sucked Arafat's dick...

Any questions?

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 10:09pm | #

Ali,

I know one of them is Angle Inlet, Minnesota. My other guess would be Isle Royale in Lake Superior. I'm not sure about a third.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 10:10pm | #

I am waiting for one of the Paulaholics to say it is an accent problem and he is saying "terrorist rations" meaning . . . a whole new round of spinning about what he actually has been saying for YEARS!

prolefeed | December 31, 2007, 10:11pm | #

Which, once again, has nothing whatsoever to do with Iranian 18-year-olds paying full tuition at GWU to get a business degree.

The comfort and welfare of said students, joe, is not a particularly pressing concern of most Iowa Republican primary voters.

As you are well aware, elections are not always about logic and facts, but about swaying ignorant and uninformed voters.

I'm sure you will be just as attentive at pointing out the dickish pandering of Democratic candidates when it occurs, right, joe? ;)

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:11pm | #

Ali,

I may be reading your question incorrectly. The only "pieces" of the USA that I know of that join Canada by land are the "lower 48" and Alaska. The State of Hawaii and the Territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands must be reached by sea or air from Canada.

If I had my way, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Mexico and Russia would solve your question ;)

Haha... OK. What I mean is that there are exactly US lands that can only be reached, say by car, by having to cross into Canada. There is absolutely no other way to doing that. So Goin to Detroit from Buffalo through Canada can be done, of course. But that is not what I mean since you can get to Detroit from Buffalo through the US. You would not have to do it through Canada.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 10:11pm | #

crimethink,

then the third is the rest of the "lower 48" eh?

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 10:14pm | #

Oh, I guess you can't drive to Isle Royale from Canada (unless you have one of those flying cars). Using Google Maps to cheat, I see Point Roberts, Washington can also be accessed only from Canada.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:14pm | #

I know one of them is Angle Inlet, Minnesota. My other guess would be Isle Royale in Lake Superior. I'm not sure about a third.

Angle Inlet is one of them. Isle Royale is an island. Can't be reached directly by land withot bridges, boats, etc. Doesn't count.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:14pm | #

Point Roberts, Washington

What's the third?

alan | December 31, 2007, 10:14pm | #

counting the Embassy up there as American property?

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:15pm | #

crimethink... you cheater!

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:15pm | #

counting the Embassy up there as American property?

Haha... technically speaking, yes. But that is not what I meant!

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 10:16pm | #

aLI,

Idunno of any US territory that is only accessable by direct land from KKKaniada but not by direct land from USAia.

alan | December 31, 2007, 10:19pm | #

well, I'm out of here for the night. I have to do a meet'n'greet and pretend I give a shit about the changing of calender digits.

Cheers to all,
except Edward.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:19pm | #

Guy Montag,

I do not want to upset those still looking into it by telling you (and everyone else here)... I am sure crimethink is scanning the border right now on Google maps!

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 10:19pm | #

Alburgh, Vermont. I did not look at Google Maps for that one...

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 10:20pm | #

yea, but I am relying on my mental map, which has much less detail.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 10:21pm | #

I thought this was an Open Book Test!

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:21pm | #

Alburgh, Vermont. I did not look at Google Maps for that one...

Yeah right! You cheater!

(P.S. check your email, especially your junk in box. Just emailed you.)

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:22pm | #

yea, but I am relying on my mental map, which has much less detail.

Well, crimethink is a cheater anyways. Someone with that handle, give me a break!

That was fun!

graduate admissions officer at Purdue | December 31, 2007, 10:22pm | #

very good

*pause

for an American, at least.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 10:23pm | #

Hey, I knew Angle Inlet without cheating. And there IS a car ferry from Ontario to Isle Royale...

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:25pm | #

And there IS a car ferry from Ontario to Isle Royale...

But no land! Sorry!

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 10:25pm | #

crimethink,

Leave Jeff Gordon out of this, k?

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 10:26pm | #

BTW,

If it were not for all of those freedom hating Leftists, the whole world would be accessable from the USA USA USA!

prolefeed | December 31, 2007, 10:30pm | #

crimethnk- Geee... is that a cross behind Donna D'Errico? Brings back memories of Huck's Christmas ad! More subliminal messages ;-)

Ali -- A hottie like Donna D'Errico is talking and you're looking at the frickin' furnishings? Are you Teh Gay? NTTAWWT, of course. ;)

Eric Atkinson | December 31, 2007, 10:30pm | #

Seem to be a bunch of nutroots making believe that they are libertarians. Ron is correct on the immigration issue, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Yeah, Raimondo is kinda sick.

That... | December 31, 2007, 10:32pm | #

If it were not for all of those freedom hating Leftists Constititionalists, the whole world would be accessable from the USA USA USA!

...was easy.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:32pm | #

Ali -- A hottie like Donna D'Errico is talking and you're looking at the frickin' furnishings? Are you Teh Gay? NTTAWWT, of course. ;)

LOL!!! NO!!! As Jerry Seinfeld would say, "not that there is anything wrong with that" :-)

Oh, is that what NTTAWWT means? Another LOL!

| December 31, 2007, 10:33pm | #

tution, even

Rick Barton | December 31, 2007, 10:34pm | #

As usual, Raimondo hits the mark.

Dr Paul, "No more student VISAs for terrorist nations" is way beneath you. The neocon nut-jobs don't deserve the credit gleaned when you, of all people, adopt their rhetoric and their positions. Beside losing votes for you, this part of your ad could serve to advance unfair policy. I can just hear Giuliani; "Why even Ron Paul advocates..." Also, it's ironic since it's you who has made the strong case that implies that free and open contact with unsavory regimes, such as student visas, will tend to work to subvert those regimes and make them less unsavory.

Good luck to you, Dr Paul. Whatever you do with this ad, you're our best hope for individual liberty, constitutional government, and the prosperity they bring.

The Johnny Appleseed of Crack | December 31, 2007, 10:34pm | #

I did a text search on this page for "slippery slope", and nothing came up. That is the reason to be concerned with this ad. I am still going to support Ron Paul, but hope that this ad is not the start of compromising/pandering by the Ron Paul campaign. It is his refusal to compromise on his principles or pander to idiots that makes him so vastly superior to other politicians.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 10:36pm | #

I support One World Government...so long as it is the federal government created by the Constitution, and true to that same Constitution.

I don't know how Global Manifest Destiny got such a bad name.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 10:39pm | #

Mr Appleseed,

That's only because I put a hyphen between in my 8:13pm post.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 10:40pm | #

I do not know why the Constitutionalists would oppose other lands joining the USa to be annexed, like Texas or California(?).

prolefeed | December 31, 2007, 10:41pm | #

Carter was right about the B-1. We'd have been better off going right from the B-52 to the B-2. Big, clumsy, balky things. Think they'll still be flying fifty years after they were built, Guy?

joe, my father was a flight test pilot for the B-52 program. We'd have been better off going right from the B-52H to the B-52I to the B-52K to ...

When you have unquestioned, unbelieveably dominant air superiority due to your fighters, you don't need a high-tech bomber. You can lumber in with a modified Boeing 747 and drop bombs at your leisure when you pwn the air.

The B-1 and B-2 were unnecessary pork. The B-52s are still flying, 55 years after first hitting the drawing boards, and will be for several more decades until the last one gets too creaky to maintain.

crimethink | December 31, 2007, 10:42pm | #

Guy,

Maybe it's for aesthetic reasons. The upper left corner of the flag is crowded as it is.

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 10:42pm | #

Johnny and crimethink,

Let's leave out the slurs towards Asian hot oil wrestling, shall we?

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:43pm | #

Rick Barton,

Exactly my sentiments above.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 10:45pm | #

""Terrorist nations?"

Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and all those "ex-Jordanians"(Paleswinians) who willingly sucked Arafat's dick...

Any questions?"

You mean Israel too, right? Fixed that for ya!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

Guy Montag | December 31, 2007, 10:46pm | #

prolofeed,

Whomever you were responding to is fabricating the history of what Carter did AND under the impression that the B-2 was ready for production in 1976.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 10:47pm | #

Oh SNAP! We're supposed to have a DOUBLE STANDARD towards those nutty Europeans who Squatted on Middle Esatern land and called it theirs!

Sorry!

Ali | December 31, 2007, 10:51pm | #

""Terrorist nations?"

Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and all those "ex-Jordanians"(Paleswinians) who willingly sucked Arafat's dick...

Any questions?"

Bearing in mind that Lebanon is 39% Christian (of different Churches), should all Lebanese be barred from studying in the US?

prolefeed | December 31, 2007, 10:56pm | #

Ali -- NONE of the Lebanese should be barred from studying in the U.S. because they're Lebanese, only if they're actually supporters of terrorism.

Especially the incredibly beautiful Lebanese women you've commented on in many threads. I've got a son to marry off in a few years ... ;)

Rick Barton | December 31, 2007, 10:56pm | #

Ali,

Good luck in your educational endeavors and Happy New Year to you!

And Happy New Year to all my fellow Reasonoids and to Justin Raimondo and Ron Paul as well!

Gonna split now.

Mr. Nice Guy | December 31, 2007, 10:58pm | #

"The B-1 and B-2 were unnecessary pork."

Oh c'mon, prolfeed, the b-1, or whatever, is , uhrr, what, uhrr, what do the GOP believe right now?


It's, urrh, wait a minute, I'll get it...Let me check...


It's a concession to Soviet Agression (Please God Don't look this up for yourself). Carter, bad. Democrats, Bad. GOP, good. Etc.

Ali | December 31, 2007, 11:09pm | #

Ali -- NONE of the Lebanese should be barred from studying in the U.S. because they're Lebanese, only if they're actually supporters of terrorism.

Ditto. I am 100 % pro rigorous background security checks on all applicants for any kind of visa. Have gone through it myself, and certainly don't mind it.

Especially the incredibly beautiful Lebanese women you've commented on in many threads. I've got a son to marry off in a few years ... ;)

Yeah!

Ali | December 31, 2007, 11:10pm | #

Rick, Happy New Year to you too!

And Happy New year to All Reasonoids, even when we disagree!

rho | December 31, 2007, 11:16pm | #

I like it when libertarians think they are a significant swing vote. It's so cute.

Eric Atkinson | December 31, 2007, 11:19pm | #

Well, if Prolfeed had his stupid opinions supported by any one else but the lefties at the "Center for Defense Disinformation," the American Air Force would be trying to fly B17s.
The Bone is a good airplane and the Spirit is a Great weapon system.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 11:20pm | #

Another little known Panama Canal fact is that John Wayne argued for giving the canal to Panama.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 31, 2007, 11:21pm | #

Ali, yeah, Happy New Year, still 2007 here though.

Now, where'd I put those M-80's?

prolefeed | December 31, 2007, 11:29pm | #

"The B-1 and B-2 were unnecessary pork."

Oh c'mon, prolfeed, the b-1, or whatever, is , uhrr, what, uhrr, what do the GOP believe right now?

MNG -- Not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that my calling these incredibly expensive airplanes pork is some kind of momentary partisan thing? Care to comment on the actual substance of what I said about air superiority? Don't give a rip about what the talking heads are saying, I'm giving my actual POV based on talking to my late father, a career Air Force flight test engineer who actually worked on the B-52 program.

rho -- Ummm, when you've got a six-way scramble for the nomination, with 20% of the vote sufficient to put you on top of the pile, yes, 5-10% of the electorate are a "significant swing vote" when combined with whatever other scraps of the electorate you can assemble into a squabbling, messy coalition. If you get the lion's share of the libertarian vote, as Ron Paul likely will do despite despicable ads like the one in question, that 5-10% can be your core voters.

Happy New Years to everyone -- even Teh Trolls and Teh Librul Statists!

prolefeed | December 31, 2007, 11:38pm | #

Well, if Prolfeed had his stupid opinions supported by any one else but the lefties at the "Center for Defense Disinformation," the American Air Force would be trying to fly B17s.
The Bone is a good airplane and the Spirit is a Great weapon system.

Eric, not denying that the B-1 and B-2 bombers are great weapon systems. But they are bloody expensive, which is why those alleged idiots at the DoD keep flying B-52s and have publicly stated they intended to keep on doing so for decades to come. Do you really think the Air Force brass are lefties who don't know what they're doing?

Iraq War II -- the only time the non-B-52 bombers were really useful was at the very beginning of the war, when the Iraqi air defense hadn't yet been pummeled into dust. Nice to have some stealthy bombers, but we could have managed without them if we had to. Having a few in the fleet is useful for these niche situations, but if you've put you're money into fighter jets and AWACs and whatnot, the bombers quickly get to fly unimpeded over major enemy cities.

rho | December 31, 2007, 11:44pm | #

rho -- Ummm, when you've got a six-way scramble for the nomination, with 20% of the vote sufficient to put you on top of the pile, yes, 5-10% of the electorate are a "significant swing vote" when combined with whatever other scraps of the electorate you can assemble into a squabbling, messy coalition. If you get the lion's share of the libertarian vote, as Ron Paul likely will do despite despicable ads like the one in question, that 5-10% can be your core voters.

Uh, okay.

Ron Paul's only chance is to bring a large number of people to the table. He has to bridge the gap between Left, Right and Center, and get them to actually show up and vote. Libertarians, as a stereotypical group, are prepared to toss him overboard because he did not Come Out In Favor Of Sucking Richard Dawkins Dick Over Evolution, and also because he's sour on the idea that All Immigrants Are Super-Plus Not-Ungood.

Libertarians define sacrificing Good for the sake of Perfect. Which is fine. As a libertarian, I'm perfectly okay with other libertarians spending their time wearing ironic t-shirts and explaining why they didn't vote for the guy who had something like a snowball's chance in Hell because he wasn't pure enough to suit them. All I ask is that they stop thinking they're significant in any meaningful way. Oh, sure, if you got every libertarian together in the same room you'd have an excellent volleyball game. No doubt, it would be epic. But as a political movement, libertarians count coup from non-"sanctioned" libertarians' efforts. Folks like Ron Paul.

joe | December 31, 2007, 11:55pm | #

The question isn't whether the B-1 is a good plane. It is. For that money, it damn well better be.

The question is whether for the incredible amount of money spent on it, and not a few more B-52s and a whole lotta other stuff, it did anything for us the B-52 couldn't, and the answer is no.

There was nothing but pork and partisan posturing behind the B-1. Oh, wait, I can think of something it did that the B-52 couldn't do; you could hit Democrats over the head with it.

joe | December 31, 2007, 11:55pm | #

prolefeed,

You make a cute fanboi.

You would fillet me if I wrote that about a politician.

Happy New Years | January 1, 2008, 12:00am | #

Just kidding, I live in California.

prolefeed | January 1, 2008, 12:03am | #

rho -- Agreed. Mind you, I don't begrudge those libertarians like kolohe and fluffy and whatnot who have extremely high standards and thus may wind up voting for sure losers -- I respect that kind of principled dedication -- but I'd like to see a major shift in policy toward less intrusive government, and IMO in this election Ron Paul is the only game in town for such a government who has a greater than 0.0% chance of winning.

I've run for office, and helped out in two other campaigns, and all three campaigns lost, and losing REALLY REALLY SUCKS -- standing around late at night after the votes have come in and helping console the better candidate who lost is one of the worst feelings imaginable, especially if you're the candidate.

prolefeed | January 1, 2008, 12:10am | #

prolefeed,

You make a cute fanboi.

You would fillet me if I wrote that about a politician.

Wrote what? Which of the many posts I did on this thread are you referring to, and which statements are you taking issue with, and what is your rebuttal to the points I made? Gonna add anything constructive to the conversation, or just make snide remarks?

Oh, and Happy New Years! Peace, d00d. ;)

Daniel Reeves | January 1, 2008, 12:11am | #

Paul is the REAL DEAL. There are a lot of his supporters who just aren't comfortable with the fact that libertarianism IS a far right ideology.

Uhhh, no. It's right-leaning, but it's definitely more moderate than far right. Libertarians can meet with liberals on a lot of issues.

SIV | January 1, 2008, 12:26am | #

Paul is the REAL DEAL. There are a lot of his supporters who just aren't comfortable with the fact that libertarianism IS a far right ideology.

Uhhh, no. It's right-leaning, but it's definitely more moderate than far right. Libertarians can meet with liberals on a lot of issues.


I suppose that depends on how you identify "liberal" and "Far right".

left/liberals do not have the sam regard for property rights and individualism.

Happy 2008!

Ali | January 1, 2008, 12:30am | #

Ali, yeah, Happy New Year, still 2007 here though.

Now, where'd I put those M-80's?

Now 2008 here! Happy New Year, TWC!

But what in the world is an M-80?

Ali | January 1, 2008, 12:33am | #

Which one is it? The gun?, Well, Happy New Year ;-)

SIV | January 1, 2008, 12:40am | #

This one an American icon and long ago victim of the Nanny State. You can sometimes find real ones but they are illegal. Fake ones don't have the "fun potential" of a 1/4 stick of dynamite.

TGGP | January 1, 2008, 12:49am | #

I discussed the issue at my blog a while back here.

prolefeed | January 1, 2008, 12:53am | #

libertarianism IS a far right ideology.

Uhhh, no. It's right-leaning, but it's definitely more moderate than far right.

Because there's nothing more far-right than legalizing all drugs, prostitution, gambling, and porn, to name just a few of the core issues championed by all the Republicans in Iowa right now ...

Warty | January 1, 2008, 1:16am | #

Especially the incredibly beautiful Lebanese women

God, yes. By far the worst thing that Muslims have done is to force their hot women to wear sacks.

Johncjackson the 3rd | January 1, 2008, 1:20am | #

I said this stuff "Have you ever thought that maybe Ron Paul really believes the social-con stuff and he is actually pandering to US ( libertarians)?"

Other people said stuff like this: "Considering the relative numbers of socio-cons and libertarians in the GOP, he would be a complete idiot to pander to the latter. There's just nothing to gain."

Now I say this stuff:
Yeah I somewhat agree. I think a large % of libertarians will support regardless and the numbers are relatively small. However, I wasn't taking about this election so much as the past 20-30 years. While Libertarians are a small bunch we are very passionate and have been willing to give a lot of $$$$ to the cause. Ron Paul has been the # 1 "libertarian" in politics for a long time and has made a lot of $$$ and received a lot of support in other ways from libertarians who have championed him as the only "libertarian" in a somewhat "high" elected office ( 10 terms in the House, rather than the local soil conservation board or something). I think it is a niche that he pretty has to himself. A social conservative ( who is or isnt libertarian) "Constitutional" politician who supports federalism could very well agree with libertarians on 70-80% of policy without being one himself.

I guess I am opposite of the Ayn Rand rationale for supporting Goldwater.

I'm fairly "open borders" to be honest. But even if I were passionately against "illegal" immigration, it wouldn't be because I dislike brown people.

In the same way I might oppose "Civil Rights" legislation on libertarian grounds, but I wouldn't be hanging around the Klan or supporting candidates who make ads opposing scary black people "invading" white America. And I wouldnt say that rights are derived from the COnsitution and that it gives states the "right" to violate the innate rights of its residents, among other things.

The individualism > collectivism thing is a big deal to me and the philosophy is important, not just a freak coincidence of agreement.

SIV | January 1, 2008, 1:23am | #

Right wing Republicans think dangerous stuff like light bulbs, high powered heavy automobiles, and semi-automatic firearms and vitamins should be legal while liberals and moderates think they should be banned. Libertarians, being further to the right.favor even less restrictions on property rights.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 1, 2008, 1:36am | #

Ali, M-80's are big firecrackers that are illegal here. 1.5 hrs to go. :-) Were drinking wine and watching Lost (Season 3--WTF did they kill off Mr Echo?) with the kids. Break time to make popcorn. :-)

Ali | January 1, 2008, 1:37am | #

SIV- Thanks!

Ali | January 1, 2008, 1:38am | #

TWC- Ah, well thanks to you to sir! Enjoy Lost. Hey, 2008 ain't too bad so far. Enjoy 2007 while it lasts!

Ali | January 1, 2008, 1:47am | #

FWIW, just came across this on Justin Raimondo's blog:

Regarding the 19 hijackers, while several of them applied for student visas, none of them originated from countries currently defined as a terrorist state by the State Department. The sole hijacker that applied for and actually used a student visa, Hani Hanjour, was from Saudi Arabia. All of the others used B1/B2 visas (tourism, business travel).

I did not know this!

Mooncakes | January 1, 2008, 2:07am | #

In LA, at least where I live, the new year is still about six weeks away. The year of the Rat begins on Feb 7. The Chinese are disappointing in some ways. You'd think they'd import some fireworks and set them off to mark the day, instead they import gad-awful mooncakes.

terrorist's visa | January 1, 2008, 2:52am | #

September 1987-March 1989: Head US Consular Official Claims He’s Told to Issue Visas to Unqualified Applicants

Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, later claims that during this period he is “repeatedly ordered… to issue [more than 100] visas to unqualified applicants.” He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. [BBC, 11/6/2001; St. Petersburg Times, 11/25/2001; Democracy for America, 6/28/2006]

In one case, two Pakistanis apply for visas to attend a trade show in the US, but they are unable to name the trade show or city in which it will be held. When Springman denies them a visa, he gets “an almost immediate call from a CIA case officer, hidden in the commercial section [of the consulate], that I should reverse myself and grant these guys a visa.” Springman refuses, but the decision is reversed by the chief of the consular section. Springman realizes that even the ambassador, Walter Cutler, is aware of the situation, which becomes “more brazen and blatant” as time goes on. On one occasion Springman is even told, “If you want a job in the State Department in future, you will change your mind.” [CBC Radio One, 7/3/2002; Trento, 2005, pp. 344-6; Democracy for America, 6/28/2006]

Springmann loudly complains to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He is fired and his files on these applicants are destroyed. He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah, possibly as part of this program (see October 9, 2002 and October 21, 2002) but there is any evidence. [BBC, 11/6/2001; St. Petersburg Times, 11/25/2001; CBC Radio One, 7/3/2002; Associated Press, 7/17/2002 pdf file; Fox News, 7/18/2002; Democracy for America, 6/28/2006; Democracy for America, 6/29/2006]

In fact, only 11 hijackers applied for their visas at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, the four others Saudis hijackers applied at the U.S. embassy in Riyadh. [United States General Accounting Office, 10/21/2002, pp. pp. 45-46 pdf file] J. Michael Springmann, member of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, requests, at this time, an investigation on several individuals whom served, in this own words, “at the CIA’s Consulate General at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia”. [Springmann, 12/20/2005; Springmann, 3/25/2006; National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, 5/1/2007]

May 21, 2002: Fraudulent Consular Staff Admits to Providing Hijackers with Visas

Abdulla Noman, a former employee of the US consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers got their visas, says that he took money and gifts to provide fraudulent visas to foreigners. He pleads guilty and is convicted. About 50 to 100 visas were improperly issued by Noman from September 1996 until November 2001, when he was arrested. However, a former visa officer in Jeddah, Michael Springmann, has claimed in the past that the Jeddah office was notorious for purposefully giving visas to terrorists to train in the US (see September 1987-March 1989). [Associated Press, 5/21/2002]

The Wine Commonsewer | January 1, 2008, 3:33am | #

We're into the new year now. It was pretty quiet around here except for us. Banging pots, blowing off penny fire crackers (dude, those things were the loudest fire crackers ever).......No more mea culpas.

Mooncakes? From the guys who invented fire crackers? That's a sad commentary.

Happy New Year to all! Except for those Chinese guys and those other guys. But in Tokyo, it's morning of 2008.

Anon | January 1, 2008, 3:35am | #

The 44 mag was pretty fargin' loud, dude.

Shaddup, if you shoot it into the ground you ain't going to kill any drunks two miles from here.

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 7:02am | #

Happy New Year

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 7:04am | #

Montgomery County(?), MD is now the first jurisdiction in the DC area to have a transfat ban in force.

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 7:07am | #

Back to the topic at hand, Dr. Paul's anti terrorism strategy is to deny visas to people from various locations and closing the borders?

ed | January 1, 2008, 7:24am | #

"VISA's" shouldn't have an apostrophe. Stupid titles guy.

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 8:13am | #

Well, I finally watched the spot. It revived some of my knee-jerk reactions to imagery from my days to the Left of where I am now, especially the image of the person swimming through the water. Then I came to my senses.

David, I must say that your monitor must be better than mine as I could not distinguish the 'level of swarth' between the folks displayed as illegal and the Europeans (they could have been Greeks and Italians for all I could distinguish). However, I did get the whole "wetback" message, that I am not quite on board with.

End birthright citizenship? Another Constitutional Amendment is in order?

I really do not think that Dr. Paul is a bogot and I don't want to think that he is, but the way this video was produced makes it more difficult to defend against those charges.

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 8:30am | #

Do we have to wait for the hangovers to go away before this thread goes over 300 posts? Where are the pot guys? Y'all don't get hangovers do you?

Jeremy | January 1, 2008, 9:25am | #

As an RP supporter with small L libertarian leanings, I personally find Ron Paul's mild "pandering" on this issue to be far less offensive than the open-borders treason advocated by Reason magazine (and yes, I'm a subscriber nonethelss) Open borders advocacy is one of the main reasons I will never be a big L libertarian

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 9:29am | #

This whole Ron Paul anti-Immigrant ad, sucks on an entirely different plain, which none of you have touched on.

Republicans for years have been trying to win over more Hispanic voters. Paul himself, represents a far South Texas District. Do you all realize that the furthest southern point in TX CD-14 - Aransas Pass, is only a mere 2 hour drive from the Mexico border?

This just kills Republican efforts to win over Hispanic voters, especially here in Texas.

Let's hope this ad stays in Iowa, and Texas Hispanic voters don't catch on to it.

Nightmare scenario: Raul Brindies at Univision picks up the story. If Univision catches wind of this, Republicans can kiss the Hispanic vote away for decades to come.

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 9:33am | #

Jeremy,

Good morning and happy new year!

As far as the issue of having meaningful borders vs. meaningless borders, I am with you.

However, stuff like this ad are what give folks like Nick, David, and well as you said the whole Reason staff, the impression that everybody who advocates secure borders is some sort of Hispanic hating bigot. Not that they are right in that belief in the slightest, but it ceartinly does not help.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 9:35am | #

Jeremy and Others, it's not just Paul's pandering on this one issue. He does it all over the place on a number of issues, particularly Military-related.

Did you forget about the October story of Ron Paul sending out that Pro-Military/Pro-War in Iraq mailer to South Carolina voters?

And how about Ron Paul's pandering on abortion. You go back a few years and read some of his statements calling for the immediate jailing of any Doctor in the US who performed an abortion. Now he dithers and talks vaguel at "States Rights" on the issue.

And what about Term Limits? Ron Paul bragged throughout the 1980s and 90s how he was the VERY FIRST Congressman to introduce Term Limits legislation. But when USTL came to him and asked him to sign the 8-year limite pledge, he balked.

He's heading into his 9th year in Congress now, btw.

Ron Paul knows he can raise $millions from celebrity-starved Libertarian donors. So, he talks the Libertarian line directly to them. But as soon as he finds it convenient and potentially useful to his efforts, he'll talk an entirely different line to others.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003

Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, Travel Aide, 1987/88

Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for President, 1992

Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1996

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 9:36am | #

Eric,

I believe the Republicans are seeking the LEGAL Hispanic vote. If a Democrat had run an ad litke this it might have the implication you suggest, but for their party.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 9:41am | #

Guy Montag,

Ron Paul has been a Congressman for 8 years now, representing a heavily Hispanic District.

During that time, he has hired a grand total of 1 1/2 Hispanics for his Congressional offices. Each Congressman gets 22 paid staffers plus a few Interns.

Only Dianna Gilbert who works immigration issues out of his Lake Jackson office is Hispanic. (There was another guy named Manny Villareal who worked for Ron briefly in 1996).

Now, with a Congressional District that's roughly 40% Hispanic don't you think you'd hire a few more Hispanics to make the Congressional office more representative?

And there are plenty of Conservative, Republican and even a few libertarian-oriented Hispanics in the District he could hire.

But he's got only one single Hispanic employee on Staff.

And you pose the question is Ron Paul a bigot? Maybe bigot is too strong a word. But grossly insensitive and wholly out-of-touch with Hispanics and Hispanic culture, might fit the bill.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 9:44am | #

LOL! Yes, you are entirely correct Guy. Republicans want the legal Hispanic vote, Dems want the illegal vote.

I found this out in southern California doing voter regs for the Republican Party. Since I'm fluent in Spanish they sent me to the heavily Hispanic areas like Calexico, El Centro, Indio, El Cajon, ect...

Every day I'd get Hispanics telling me in Spanish, of course, that they were not citizens, but they were already registered to vote.

I'd ask them how is that possible. They'd say that the local Democrat Party would come by each year and register them, and force them to vote straight Democrat. If they didn't they'd be threatened to be turned into the Border Patrol.

And that's just one of the tricks the Dems use in Southern Cal.

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 9:46am | #

Eric,

Go spew your quota requirements at someone else.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 9:51am | #

Interesting that Justin Raimondo shows up here.

Guys & Gals, you all need to take what Raimondo says here with a grain of salt.

Something you may not be aware or. Rumor has it that He and his sidekick Eric Garris are on the Lew Rockwell payroll. (Garris is apparently the web designer for LewRockwell.com).

What it appears has happened is that Raimondo was initially outraged by the ad. I bet he mouthed off inappropriately, and Rockwell called him up to rein him in.

Thus you see him backtracking with the above comments in response to Weigel.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 9:53am | #

Nope, no quota requirements here Montage. I've petitioned against affirmative action. I'm a Ward Connerly fanatic.

Just saying from a political standpoint Ron Paul is not helping out the cause of the Republican Party in outreach to Hispanic voters with this ad.

Shows incredibly bad political judgement on his part, especially when he represents a heavily Hispanic District.

| January 1, 2008, 9:56am | #

P.S. Anyone want to sign up and defend me from a smear?

To be a smear it has to contain something untrue.

Pig Mannix | January 1, 2008, 9:56am | #

@Earache Dildero

Don't you have anything fucking better to do on fucking New Year's Day?

Jesus Fucking Christ!

Minion of URKOBOLD | January 1, 2008, 10:06am | #

HARROOOO AWIK DUNDEROOOOO.

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 10:09am | #

PM,

Happy new year!

Is the dirt on your side of the pen supposed to be cleaner or something?

P Brooks | January 1, 2008, 10:24am | #

And how about those headlines on Google News saying Fox News has dropped, or would like to drop, Dr Paul from the upcoming "debate?"

If only he could be a legitimate candidate, like Fred Thompson.

joe | January 1, 2008, 10:32am | #

Republican Party house organ.

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 10:33am | #

This Barret-Jackson car auction on the SPEED channel is a life saver. otherwise, nothing else worth watching on tv.

Wait, Sin City is on too, now I need to wear out the remote.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 10:40am | #

Hey everybody, while I'm already attention-whoring myself again, I'll take this opportunity to pimp my new political blog: http://www.geocities.com/modern_cincinnatus

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 10:53am | #

Obviously, the poster immediately above this post, is using my name. That is not my post.

Don't have a problem with someone warping my name for a post, or using something similar. But please do not post comments under my name.

Mike Laursen | January 1, 2008, 10:57am | #

Well, this is exactly why I can't support Ron Paul.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 11:05am | #

Aha, now we are learning the truth. The Paul-bots are spinning this as Fox News excluding Ron Paul from the debate. But the LA Times reports this morning that they have had a longheld policy of not including those who are not polling over 10%. Paul is just shy of that at 7 to 8% in statewide polls.

Also, we learn that the New Hamsphire debate people are also excluding Duncan Hunter.

The Paulbots were spinning this as saying that they're lumping Paul in the same category as Alan Keyes and Jim Cox.

What they haven't told you is that Congressman Duncan Hunter is also in that category.

As with all BS from the Paulbots, check the facts first.

Jacob | January 1, 2008, 11:12am | #

There goes the Reason magazine editor/ Cato scholar .000001% of DC votes.

Jacob | January 1, 2008, 11:13am | #

Dondero,

Thompson is polling below Paul. Try again.

Jacob | January 1, 2008, 11:13am | #

Sorry, are we supposed to ignore Dondero?

M | January 1, 2008, 11:14am | #

Speaking of integrity, true to myself (ie, using fairly wholesome ingredients) and yet sufficiently sybaritic to qualify for H&R's standards, reader M posts while enjoying luscious whole-wheat pancakes from the Tassajara Bread Book.

He sweetens them in the name of all who wish freedom for others.

*urp

Lost_In_Translation | January 1, 2008, 11:15am | #

I wonder how Giuliani is going to recover from placing DEAD LAST in Iowa. I think its safe to say if that happens, the worst threat to the American way of life has ended.


Now if only Romney and Huckabee would nosedive too, then I could rest easier at night.

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 11:16am | #

Jacob,

Ignoring people should be a private and personal decision.

Pig Mannix | January 1, 2008, 11:19am | #

And how about those headlines on Google News saying Fox News has dropped, or would like to drop, Dr Paul from the upcoming "debate?"

Well, by all means, take the opportunity to express your displeasure.

Guy Montag | January 1, 2008, 11:26am | #

Jacob,

Where are you getting your info on Thompson? His current numbers are in there.

Mike Laursen | January 1, 2008, 11:35am | #

I am an open borders guy but it is hard to find fault with someone who believes that one cannot have open borders with a welfare state.

It's not that hard to find fault. Our own reason writers have done a lot to discredit the claim that illegal immigrants are sucking us dry through our welfare programs. For example, this article by Shikha Dalmia:

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml

But, immigrants aren't flocking to the United States to mooch off the government. According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don't have Social Security numbers to file taxes.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 11:38am | #

You all are focusing entirely on the wrong aspect of this. It's not so much about stats of how illegals effect our economy. It's about culture.

If Ron Paul was a friend to the Hispanic community, he'd have a lot more credibility with his attacks on illegal aliens.

Instead of opening the ad with scenes of Ellis Island, why didn't he soften the ad by opening it up with scenes of legal Hispanic American immigrants?

Paul has just done serious damage to Republican efforts to reach out to Hispanic voters. That's the worst aspect of this ad, and the aspect that you all should be focusing on.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 11:41am | #

I don't care if you ignore me. I just would appreciate none of you posting comments under my name. That is entirely fraudulent and wholly un-libertarian. Please stop.

If you want to lampoon me, fine. Just do it under a name that's similar to mine like "Eric Dondildo" or Dumberdero, I could really give a flying fuck.

JUST DO NOT POST HERE AT REASON BLOG UNDER MY NAME ERIC DONDERO! PLEASE!

Is that too much to ask?

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 11:46am | #

I don't care if you ignore me. I just would appreciate none of you posting comments under my name. That is entirely fraudulent and wholly un-libertarian. Please stop.

If you want to lampoon me, fine. Just do it under a name that's similar to mine like "Eric Dondildo" or Dumberdero, I could really give a flying fuck.

JUST DO NOT POST HERE AT REASON BLOG UNDER MY NAME ERIC DONDERO! PLEASE!

Is that too much to ask?

SIV | January 1, 2008, 11:47am | #

Anchor babies can use WIC and foodstamps...wait
how can babies sign up for welfare and go grocery shopping?

Cretan, quoting for truth | January 1, 2008, 11:51am | #

I don't care if you ignore me.

joe | January 1, 2008, 11:53am | #

Paul has just done serious damage to Republican efforts to reach out to Hispanic voters.

As opposed to Rudy and Mitt, I suppose.

Yeah, that's the reason Hispanics are leaving the Republicans - Ron Paul.

Puh-leeze | January 1, 2008, 11:54am | #

E.D., What will it take for you to ignore us?

Isaac Bartram | January 1, 2008, 12:00pm | #

He talks non-intervention to a national audience, and back home here in Angleton, and Lake Jackson, and super conservative Victoria it's all Support the Troops, Fight Terrorism, Get more Money for Veteran's Programs.

There's no inconsistency between a non-intervention stand and calling for a strong national defense.

And the Quakers are in favor of more Money for Veteran's Programs. Real bunch of warmongers them Quakers, huh?

Dreck Endingle | January 1, 2008, 12:14pm | #

***
Erikkk Dondero sez:

JUST DO NOT POST HERE AT REASON BLOG UNDER MY NAME ERIC DONDERO! PLEASE!

Is that too much to ask?
***

Well yes, Eric, this is something of a tall order for you to desperately ask of people that you continually lambaste and call "pussy-boy" for not supporting your jingoist creep version of True Libertarianism. In order to get cordial peaches and cream, you have to somehow begin to extend the gesture. You have demonstrated that you are not interested in gentlemanly discourse, only bull-headed and unREASONable cross-posting of your website diatribes and pimping of a Presidential candidate that is only superficially libertarian in some very weak economic context.

Pro Libertate | January 1, 2008, 12:27pm | #

"Hispanics" aren't a block. Many Cubans, for instance, are perfectly happy with excluding Mexicans from the country. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mexican-Americans (i.e., legal immigrants from Mexico) being okay with immigration restrictions, either--they're already "in", you see. Not that I'm happy with Paul's position here, but I don't think it sounds any death knells.

joe | January 1, 2008, 12:33pm | #

Pro Lib,

Think of the conservatives who try to appeal to religious African-American voters by bashing gay people.

Those voters may not like gay marriage, but they like rhetoric that reminds them of George Wallace, either.

joe | January 1, 2008, 12:33pm | #

er, "even less."

Ken Shultz | January 1, 2008, 12:47pm | #

"Obviously, the poster immediately above this post, is using my name. That is not my post."

That may not be your post, but, wow, that guy's got a heck of website, huh?

Name Withheld | January 1, 2008, 1:03pm | #

Well yes, Eric, this is something of a tall order for you to desperately ask

Wrong. It is very uncool to post comments here under someone else's name.

Name Withheld 2 | January 1, 2008, 1:12pm | #

**
Wrong. It is very uncool to post comments here under someone else's name.
***

You're right, I won't do it again. :(

brotherben | January 1, 2008, 1:13pm | #

God, George Wallace, and Bear Bryant.
The Holy Trinity here in Alabama.

Happy New Year people

Jethro | January 1, 2008, 1:27pm | #

Eric!!! Please forgive me for impersonating you on this highly unregulated internet forum!! I am sorry!!! :-((((

Francisco Torres | January 1, 2008, 2:05pm | #

Going back to the TV ad:

The idea of not giving student visas to people from countries that harbor terrorists or whose governments foment acts of terrorism against the U.S. makes sense if you consider that his Foreign Policy of Non Intervention would not give excuse to any terrorist organization to attack the U.S. So if a country's government still felt the need to foster terrorism against America, would you think it would make sense to just give visas to people from such a country?

So, Paul's position is perfectly reasonable and the argument is sound: "If we [finally!] stretch the hand of friendship and you still bite it, then there is no incentive for us to extend an invitation to enter our country. Otherwise, you are most welcome."

I can see why this seems like pandering, but really, can you explain this argument in 30 seconds??

joe | January 1, 2008, 2:09pm | #

Francisco, conflating individuals in a country with its government goes against everything I've learned about libertarianism over the past seven years.

Should Germany stop giving student visas from "warmonger" countries?

Kent Cowan | January 1, 2008, 2:29pm | #

Paul is pro-freedom, pro-individual rights but wants to kick the Mexicans out. Now I'm confused. Okay, well he's not running as a libertarian. Lets hope people remember that when President Paul's brown shirts are kicking down doors rounding up millions of people guilty of seeking a better life are hauled off for deportation back to Mexico. And when children of "illegals" are stripped of their citizenship.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 2:40pm | #

Oh my gosh! Ron Paul has just been caught in a major flip flop.

At least one newspaper is now reporting that Paul responded to a CNN questionaire in 1988 as wanting to "abolish the Border Patrol."

Funny when you consider his current tough on border security ad.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 2:40pm | #

Oops, I link to the story at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com. It's from a newspaper in Michigan.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 2:43pm | #

What will it take for me to ignore you all?

Simple: Major Bloggers at Hit & Run admitting that they were wrong on the War in Iraq, and that the Iraq War has been a stunning success, and that President Bush deserves a great deal of credit for our Military Victory. And that the War on Islamo-Fascism is a just cause and is consistent with libertarianism.

And an article by Reason to that effect.

Eric Dondero, Chairman
Libertarian Defense Caucus

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 2:44pm | #

Jethro, apology accepted. Thanks.

Eric Dondero | January 1, 2008, 2:48pm | #

Dreck, has there EVER BEEN!! and instance on this blog or any other political blog when I have misrepresented myself as not Eric Dondero, or posted under someone else's name?

All's fair in politics, except outright fraud. I can take the name-calling. I can take the faux websites set up to lambast me. I can dish it out, and take it.

But the one thing I cannot take is someone representing themselves as me, and posting comments under my name in an attempt to make me look silly or worse, attribute comments to me that I never made.

I think you owe me an apology.

R C Dean | January 1, 2008, 2:57pm | #

Fact is, Paul knows that there are no "terrorist nations" at the moment. Nations do not sponsor terrorism;

The hell they don't. Syria and Iran are currently doing so. Libya used to do so, as did (wait for it) Iraq. What do you think all those checks to suicide bombers and their families are? All those weapons and terrorists crossing their country and using their territory for training?

Ron Paul | January 1, 2008, 3:23pm | #

Some more of my pandering.

Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

P Brooks | January 1, 2008, 3:50pm | #

highly unregulated internet forum!!


Ve vill haff order in our government-sponsored intertuben, ja?

Rudy will abolish sockpuppets and spoofing on teh intertubes.

And every day will be 9/12.

Francisco Torres | January 1, 2008, 4:08pm | #

Joe,

Should Germany stop giving student visas from "warmonger" countries?

I do not know what Germany (rather, its government) should or should not do regarding "warmongering" countries - that question is besides the point. The point is that Paul's stance on student visas for people that come from countries that foster terrorist organizations that harbor ill feelings against the US or promote terrorism against the US makes sense - considering his foreign policy of Non Intervention. A Paulian US would bring back the US troops and close the bases around the world; the US would also stop shipping tax payer's money to Israel and its enemies (ending the irrational double game the previous governments played). Such gestures should take many of the excuses the terrorists have for fighting and recruiting.

Better question would be: Let's assume a particular country, WehateGermanyztan, fosters terrorist groups that want to destroy Germany. Should the German government issue student visas to people of WehateGermanyztan?

TGGP | January 1, 2008, 4:09pm | #

The Republicans aren't going to win the Hispanic vote whatever they do. Steve Sailer has discussed this better than anyone. He also points out that according to polls Hispanics are among the most un-libertarian ethnic groups. Even Hispanic Republicans are more big-government than white Democrats. Hispanics form a rather small portion of the electorate (many of them can't or don't vote) and what they care about tends to be bread-and-butter issues while more affluent/educated voters care about candidates representing noble ideals and whatnot. The Republicans success depends on the white vote (it was once thought asians would go for them, but that hasn't been the case since 1991). It is political suicide for Republicans and libertarians to allow the electorate to change b "electing a new people" with our lax immigration policies. The Pete Wilson strategy works, despite all the crap people have written about it.

joe | January 1, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Francisco,

Allowing people from Country X to come into our country, rather than deporting them if they try to do so, is intervening in Country X's affairs? That doesn't begin to make any sense.

Especially if you consider that Paul is, apparently, proposing to single out certain countries and deny their students visas, while allowing students from other countries to receive said visas.

Should the German government issue student visas to people of WehateGermanyztan?

Which people? Members of the terrorist groups, absolutely not, but to declare that everyone from your mythical country should be treated like a terrorist is just discrimination based on national origin, and an exercise in diminishining individuals to the level of group membership. Very un-libertarian.

Francisco Torres | January 1, 2008, 4:36pm | #

Allowing people from Country X to come into our country, rather than deporting them if they try to do so, is intervening in Country X's affairs? That doesn't begin to make any sense.

Neither to me, I do not know what compelled you to make this question. If what you ask is: Is it not denying visas to people from Country X on the pretext that the country fosters terrorism not a form of intervention over that country's policies? The answer is: NO, it would be an example of the exercise of Freedom of Association, Joe. People from Country X do not have a Natural Right to student visas.

Especially if you consider that Paul is, apparently, proposing to single out certain countries and deny their students visas, while allowing students from other countries to receive said visas.

Same point as above - nobody has a right to a visa. We as people exercise the same right to freely associate with whomever we wish: I do not let religious fundamentalist into my home to rant, exercising my right to freely associate with whomever I wish. That does not constitute a form of intervention on their beliefs, not by a long shot, so why should it be different with the student visa scenario?

Francisco Torres | January 1, 2008, 4:38pm | #

Sorry, question should have been written:
"Is it not denying visas to people from Country X on the pretext that the country fosters terrorism a form of intervention over that country's policies?", without the double negation.

Ken Shultz | January 1, 2008, 4:51pm | #

"Hispanics are among the most un-libertarian ethnic groups. Even Hispanic Republicans are more big-government than white Democrats. Hispanics form a rather small portion of the electorate (many of them can't or don't vote) and what they care about tends to be bread-and-butter issues while more affluent/educated voters care about candidates representing noble ideals and whatnot."

I don't know where this ethic profiling is leading, but, please, don't do the blacks, okay?

James Anderson Merritt | January 1, 2008, 5:02pm | #

David E. Gallaher wrote, "P.S. Borders are unlibertarian."

I would agree that using borders to keep peaceful people out or unwilling people in IS unlibertarian. But borders themsevles don't seem to be inherently unlibertarian. I want there to be places on the planet where liberty is promoted and protected. The way the world works (has worked for a long time, and will probably work for far longer than any of us will remain alive on Earth), this implies that territory must be formally established and defended, which further requires borders. A border isn't such a bad thing if it is the legal "wall" beyond which you can pass to escape tyranny and begin enjoying liberty. Such a border is similar to the "zone of privacy" that our Supreme Court has found surrounding every person (with citizens perhaps having bigger zones than non-citizens). Are such "personal borders" unlibertarian?

Ken Shultz | January 1, 2008, 5:06pm | #

I think he was speaking to the larger point, the idea that rights are defined by the people who defend borders is inherently unlibertarian, is it not?

MikeP | January 1, 2008, 6:15pm | #

We as people exercise the same right to freely associate with whomever we wish

You use the right words, but you don't seem to appreciate their meaning.

Preventing students from country X from having visas solely because they are from country X is abrogating the rights of free association of both the prospective foreign students and the prospective US universities, housing owners, merchants, et multae cetera, who would choose to associate with them.

SEAMUS O'GILMORE | January 1, 2008, 6:38pm | #

joe | December 31, 2007, 6:43pm | #
Is Ireland a terrorist nation?

Say that again you poof and me and Liam'll blow up your favorite pub.

Seriously... please god, lets get this shit over with. No more politics. Paul is showing his ass here, and it's pathetic. contributing to the false perception of the "brown menace" isnt helping anyone. We dont give student visas to AK47 weilding radicals. We give them to biological engineers for Phd work etc. The US can't domestically produce either hordes of cheap phds, or farm laborers. I dont know what these guys say in private, but the whole immigration hysteria in public is totally counter productive to the future of the US economy, not to mention our long term future to assimilate the next generations of americans.

B | January 1, 2008, 7:28pm | #

"This phraseology gives the War Party carte blanche – and, believe you me, they’ll use it"

As evidenced by the wars we are fighting all over the globe against every majority muslim nation in the world. Oh wait, that isn't happening now. As a matter of fact the War Party as led by the current president has been giving many of these countries billions in aid every year for years and years.

The ridiculous hyperbole used by Raimondo, fuck he even used italics, proves he is dumber than a bag of hammers.

Goldthwait | January 1, 2008, 7:30pm | #

"Raimondo wants the campaign to skunk the ad, but that won't happen. Paul is a politician: He's pushing one of the few issues where the majority of Republican voters are on his side"

Actually it's huge majorities of voters of every political persuasion, as evidenced by poll after poll, and not just Republicans. You morons only mention Republicans on this site because you like to paint the majority of them as unrepentant xenophobes because they object to hordes of people breaking our laws.

Reason, once again, kissing Paul's ass | January 1, 2008, 7:37pm | #

"If you want to blame feckless Iowans for driving Paul to this"



Haha, you guys are so fucking pathetic; you are so eager to carry water for Paul that you are actually claiming it is someone else's fault he is taking the positions he does. I have an idea: how about "blaming" Paul for his policy positions.

Kent in Soviet Kanuckistan | January 1, 2008, 8:14pm | #

"Actually it's huge majorities of voters of every political persuasion, as evidenced by poll after poll, and not just Republicans. You morons only mention Republicans on this site because you like to paint the majority of them as unrepentant xenophobes because they object to hordes of people breaking our laws."

Drug users are braking the laws too. But Paul's answer for that is legalization. Paul's answer for illegal aliens isn't to legalize their status but further punish them. Where is the consistency?

Just a guess | January 1, 2008, 8:26pm | #

Paul's answer for illegal aliens isn't to legalize their status but further punish them. Where is the consistency?

Maybe because he believes securing borders is the government's business and regulating drugs is not?

MikeP | January 1, 2008, 8:41pm | #

Maybe because he believes securing borders is the government's business and regulating drugs is not?

Since it would be many times easier to secure the borders were the number of legal immigrants increased to meet the market demand, this clearly isn't the answer.

Got another guess?

Extra ! Extra ! | January 1, 2008, 9:27pm | #

Paul Rivals Clinton, Raising Almost $20 Million for Campaign

By Kristin Jensen

Jan. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Presidential candidate Ron Paul raised almost $20 million for his campaign in the last three months, potentially outpacing every one of his Republican rivals and putting his fundraising in league with Hillary Clinton's.

Another guess, many times easier | January 1, 2008, 10:35pm | #

I know! Let's decriminalize everything! Yay!

joe | January 2, 2008, 11:17am | #

Francisco Torres,

I do not let religious fundamentalist into my home to rant, exercising my right to freely associate with whomever I wish. That does not constitute a form of intervention on their beliefs, not by a long shot, so why should it be different with the student visa scenario?

1. Because the United States is not your property, not our collective property, and the government doesn't have the same rights over it that a homeowner has over his property.

2. Because "not giving someone a visa" is a Bureaucratise for "siccing federal law enforcement on someone, with orders to lock up and deport him."

dhex | January 2, 2008, 12:04pm | #

You morons only mention Republicans on this site because you like to paint the majority of them as unrepentant xenophobes because they object to hordes of people breaking our laws.

well they're also the party of tancredo, etc so...yeah.

Anarchist | January 2, 2008, 2:54pm | #

"I know! Let's decriminalize everything! Yay!"

Everything that is non-violent. Yay!

Brian Miller | January 2, 2008, 5:09pm | #

Creation science advocate.

Anti-gay law introducer.

And proud xenophobe.

He's just another Republican. His supporters have been had and are going to feel pretty damn stupid when he retires on all those campaign contributions after Super Tuesday.

Such is the price of blind myopia and candidate cultism.

Kent from Soviet Kanuckistan | January 2, 2008, 10:32pm | #

Justin, you say you're with RP 100% but you don't explain why? Too much time hanging around with Pat Buchanan clouded your reason?

"I'm with Ron 100 percent. Secure the borders. Stop illegal immigration. No amnesty."

George Dance | January 2, 2008, 11:34pm | #

There is nothing wrong with "pandering" to a group - ie, speaking its language. In fact, it's essential if Libertarians ever hope to make a difference the way Ron Paul's supporters are doing today. (See, even I'm doing it 8)

Haven't any of you Libertarians attended a Marshall Fritz workshop? If so, don't you remember the Ransberger (sp) Pivot?



All the policy proposals in the ad are compatible with Libertarian principles, and they'd fit in fine with the Libertarian Party up here in Canada.

I admit that 'terrorist nation' bothered me at first, since I had no idea how that would work. But then I got the idea of it being a sanction short of an act of war that a president could impose. Denying student visas could be one of a number of sanctions; putting a tariff on or even embargoing goods from those countries could be another.

As an example of how that would work: Following 9/11, both Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (and I suppose Iraq, though there'd be no justification for that) could have been designated terrorist nations, and those sanctions could have been left in place until both countries had turned over UBL and/or the rest of Al Qaeda.


Why not invade those countries and kill everyone instead, Mr. Weigel asks? Well, Dubya already tried that, and it didn't work out so well.

Kent from Soviet Kanuckistan | January 3, 2008, 12:32am | #

I remember the Ransberger pivot George, but you don't pivot right out of your principle into theirs then try to do them one better. What Ron Paul proposes is far worse from a libertarian point-of-view than anything the other remaining candidates are proposing. On this issue, he's gone off the track.