worldwide dubstep community
https://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/
I'd be interested to see how Ronald McDonald would do in the polls.SuperRyDog wrote:Donald Trump... or Ronald McDonald.
Shum wrote:I'd be interested to see how Ronald McDonald would do in the polls.SuperRyDog wrote:Donald Trump... or Ronald McDonald.
every congressman makes that argument-boring wrote:doesnt ron paul simply support the constitution?
Shum wrote:Are they still talking up the chances of that lawyer (?) with all the adopted kids?
Raggles wrote:I think Ron Paul should run. Seems like a sharp ol fella.
Realistically though, he's probably going to be labeled a radical because of his views and not make it...unless people actually listen to his reasoning.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.htmlWe must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.
Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won’t do.
Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs – programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning.
Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.
Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.
We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.
If we took some of the steps I have outlined here – eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders – we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens. Sadly, it appears we are moving toward policies like a national ID that diminish our liberties. Like gun control, these approaches only punish the innocent, as criminals will always find a way around the law.
the acid never lies wrote:Come on! Is the biggest mark anyone has against Ron Paul the fact that he never went to business school? Does nobody have an opinion on his views on immigration or his teetering on the fringe of far right movements? Maybe I'm asking the wrong people...
This is one of the topics he is not qualified to speak about.the acid never lies wrote:http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.htmlWe must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.
Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won’t do.
Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs – programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning.
Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.
Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.
We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.
If we took some of the steps I have outlined here – eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders – we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens. Sadly, it appears we are moving toward policies like a national ID that diminish our liberties. Like gun control, these approaches only punish the innocent, as criminals will always find a way around the law.
Go Ron Paul! Not.
These are all major plus points to me. The legislation thing can be debated too, he has gotten people talking about a lot of important issues and actually brought them from the "fringe" into people's homes. Not sure what you mean by the Kennedy comparison though. Still, like I've said before I only like some of ideas so I wouldn't say I'm a supporter, but what does it really matter if he looks good or stands out as a speaker. Obama stood out as a speaker (reader) and that hasn't gone well, Bush was a horrible speaker and that went worse.pkay wrote:every congressman makes that argument-boring wrote:doesnt ron paul simply support the constitution?
he doesnt have an extensive military history, he's not overly wealthy, he hasnt made a name for himself in business, etc etc...
the acid never lies wrote:Otherwise let's just hand over all our power to Harvard Business School and let them make all the policy decisions for us
wormcode wrote:These are all major plus points to me. The legislation thing can be debated too, he has gotten people talking about a lot of important issues and actually brought them from the "fringe" into people's homes. Not sure what you mean by the Kennedy comparison though. Still, like I've said before I only like some of ideas so I wouldn't say I'm a supporter, but what does it really matter if he looks good or stands out as a speaker. Obama stood out as a speaker (reader) and that hasn't gone well, Bush was a horrible speaker and that went worse.pkay wrote:every congressman makes that argument-boring wrote:doesnt ron paul simply support the constitution?
he doesnt have an extensive military history, he's not overly wealthy, he hasnt made a name for himself in business, etc etc...
I also don't agree that just having a degree or not means someone knows more or less about a certain subject. He's into Austrian economics anyway, so naturally I think you two would disagree on those things seeing as he doesn't like the American way to begin with.
I agree that I don't think he knows how to execute the ideas either, but does anyone? Not just his ideas, but most ideas aren't executed well in government. It also would depend on his cabinet as well, and honestly I'm not sure who would be up for accepting those positions given how much most of the politicians like to distance themselves from him. If he actually got in, this might change though. I think a lot of politicians would support him more as we have seen in the last decade+ as he went from a joke in the 90s to being taken seriously.
I'm not too thrilled with any of the choices really.