President Ron Paul

[drewkitty]

Rep. Ron Paul from Texas is running for President. He had a rally here in Mountain View, CA on Saturday that didn't make the media. You see, he's not considered a "viable" candidate although he kicked quite a bit of ass in the Presidential debates. A thousand people still showed up.

He's got a bunch of qualifications:

He's a strict Constitutionalist.

He wants the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education abolished.

He's pro-individual and anti big government.

He's viciously attacked the Republicans for departing their conservative roots.

Last but not least . . . he's been against the Iraq adventure from the very beginning

Finally, the Washington Post has written an article on him.

I don't agree with him on some of his ideas and positions.

So what?

He's a man of integrity and honor in a country that is critically short on both.

Comments

Re: The Nader?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Hell, I get the same feeling from him that I get every time I look at Jimmy Carter-somebody that would make a great saint, but a horrible leader. Especially a wartime leader.

I used to think of Jimmy Carter as a misguided good guy, until he wrote that recent incredibly anti-Semitic book. Now, I think he may have been malevolent all along.

Re: The Nader?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Got some of that crack you've been smoking? What anti-Semitic book? An Amazon link would be nice.

Israel and the United States are allies. This is a great example of what the founding fathers called "foreign entanglements."

Saying that is not anti-Semitic. Nor is wondering if we get our money's worth for what we pay Israel to be our friend.

Re: The Nader?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter, among other things argues that Israel's building of a wall to stop terrorists from attacking her is equivalent to the Berlin Wall or to South African apartheid, despite the fact that the people attacking Israel are not Israeli citizens and hence have no right to enter Israel in the first place, without the consent of the Israeli government. The Jews in his foundation quit, in protest.

Demanding that Israel adhere to standards that no other nation is held to is anti-Semitic.

Re: The Nader?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Well . . .

If you acknowledge that nations have the right to keep people out based on arbitrary criteria, both the Berlin Wall and South African apartheid were entirely lawful under international law.

Arguments like this are why I'm very uncomfortable with citizenship being defined in any other way than birth within the national boundary, or immigration and naturalization.

Otherwise, a future government might arbitrarily declare you non-American and deport you to the other side of a militarized United States - Mexico border. This is what has happened to the majority of Palestinians.

In the case of Israel and Palestine, as with the Berlin Wall, the issue is not what level of fortification is used to control the border (which is an essential function of national government), but the criteria that are used to control passage across the border.

Re: The Nader?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

If you acknowledge that nations have the right to keep people out based on arbitrary criteria, both the Berlin Wall and South African apartheid were entirely lawful under international law.

1) Citizenship is hardly an "arbitrary criteria," since it is the primary indicator of to which state one bears primary loyalty.

2) The Israeli wall has been built to keep out people who want to kill Israelis; the Berlin Wall was built to keep in people who merely wanted to leave East Germany. Apartheid was not a "wall" at all, but rather an institutionalized system of racism.

This history lesson courtesy of me, to you who very obviously needed it. :)

Arguments like this are why I'm very uncomfortable with citizenship being defined in any other way than birth within the national boundary, or immigration and naturalization.

The Palestinians do not claim to be Israeli citizens. What they claim is that Israel has no right to exist and that they have the right to destroy the "Zionist entity" by force.

Given these facts, Israel is understandably unwilling to let the Palestinians live in Israel.

Proof of this is provided by the fact that the Israelis do let Arabs, including Muslim Arabs, become Israeli citizens if they are willing to swear allegiance to the state of Israel. They even give them the vote.

Otherwise, a future government might arbitrarily declare you non-American and deport you to the other side of a militarized United States - Mexico border. This is what has happened to the majority of Palestinians.

That is untrue. The Palestinians declared their opposition to the very existence of the state of Israel and left its territory. Thus, in your scenario, I would have to first declare my opposition to the existence of the United States of America and flee to Mexico in order to suffer this "deportation" of which you speak.

The Palestinians are NOT ISRAELI CITIZENS, and thus HAVE NO RIGHT TO RESIDE WITHIN ISRAELI BORDERS. They do not even claim to be Israeli citizens. Clear on that? They have no more right to reside in Israel than a Mexican citizen would to reside in California on the argument that it was once Mexican territory.

In the case of Israel and Palestine, as with the Berlin Wall, the issue is not what level of fortification is used to control the border (which is an essential function of national government), but the criteria that are used to control passage across the border.

Which criteria would you propose instead of the ones currently in use?

Re: The Nader?

[zakueins.livejournal.com]

Carter has the issue that he's a good, card-carrying Tranzi...which is to say pretty much a Watermelon (Green on the outside, Red on the inside).

Worse, I think he really, really believes it...and will go along with the Pravda of the week.

Re: The Nader?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Carter is a well-educated fool. And I suspect Ron Paul to be another.