I guess it's easy to label illegal immigrants as these criminal masterminds bringing down the US from the inside and the only rational solution is to kick their freeloading asses out, but unfortunately I know too many to have that view. Some of them have been here for decades, raised families and do a great deal of the work most US citizens consider beneath them.
And I suppose it's even easier to generalize everyone who opposes illegal immigration as being flat out bigots. This is an ignorant and assumptive comment, and we all know what happens when one assumes. Ron Paul doesn't blame illegal immigrants for "bringing down the U.S. from the inside" nor do I, or any sensible person for that matter. We actually blame the poor decisions of the politicians in Washington. The fact of the matter is that our bloated entitlement programs can't even sustain American citizens for much longer. How is it fair to benefit people here illegally with these benefits when many American born citizens are denied them, especially considering that these programs, as already said, can't remain much longer? And is it right to reward illegal behavior? You tell me since you seem to know.
Actually, by his stance he would have gone to war with Japan but not germany, since germany and the "jew situation" going on at that time wouldn't have been relevent to US interests.
Sure. Nazi Germany was an example, as is Japan. Was this comment trying to raise a point or make me sound stupid or...what?
He's really not about free trade at all. I'm rather confused by that statement.
And I'm confused about your confusion. I'll quote from Ron Paul himself: "Prosperity comes not just from economic freedom at home, but also from the freedom to trade abroad. If free trade were not beneficial, it would make sense for us to 'protect jobs' by buying only those goods produced entirely in our own towns. Or we could purchase only those goods produced on the streets where we live. Better still, we could restrict our purchases only from our own immediate family members. When the logic of trade restriction is taken to its natural conclusion, its impoverishing effects become too obvious to miss". It would be beneficial to learn more about where he stands before you make yourself look foolish.
As far as the intervention thing goes I was saying the US was founded by immigrants interveining in foreign affairs of others, both as a basis for the formation of the government and then as the basis to protect and safeguard the fledgling nation. All governments tamper in the affairs of others, hell you could call Ben Franklin our first spy.
No we didn't. We declared independance from the British and engaged them in a war for that independance. Therefore, spying and "intervening" were justifiable because of that state of war. And even if there is no war, it is one thing to know what other countries are doing, and another to interfer in the internal self-determination of another people or government. This only breeds resentment and hatred, and we tragically became aware of those ill feelings on September 11th. We were also warned by the people who created this country about the pitfalls of such policies:
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commerical relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible...Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"
-George Washington
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations. Entangling alliances with none."
-Thomas Jefferson.
I'm not sure which history of the early United States was presented to you in high school or college, but it was clearly not the one based in reality or you just didn't pay attention.
BTW the US has purposely destabilized goverments by denying aid or giving aid to other countries as an effective way of keeping them from taking over the fledgling country.
What powerful country were we financially aiding to prevent them from taking over our fledgling country? Are you asserting that we gave the British Empire "aid" to convince them they should not take us over? Why would any country more powerful than another take "aid" from the weaker one if it wanted to invade? Again, it seems you were sleeping in history class.
