Extremely extremely dissappointed

louisiana4liberty said:
I read the bill and that is not what the language in his ad says. You can call what I say 'freaking out', but this is the official ad of the campaign, approved by Ron Paul, and it is not consistent with his legislation. I want them to address it.

I'm just calling for the facts. I have helped fund this message. I want to know the message that I'm funding and whether I want to continue funding this.

Geez, why not get to the truth? I want transparency out of a candidate and that's why I've been behind Ron Paul. Is he going to do something different than what he says? His ad conflicts with his legislation. Tell us they screwed up the ad if it's true. Tell us that his views have changed if it's true. Just tell us the truth.
Click to expand...

So am I. I'm tired of people being illogical over this. Either Ron Paul changed his views on collectivism and foreign policy, or his campaign made a mistake with the ad. There is nothing wrong with wanting a transparent answer from the only candidate that has been transparent until now.

I don't care about visas, I care about the language on the ad. Even Justin Raimondo from anti-war.com, the guy that consistently churns out high-quality pro-Ron Paul articles disagreed with the ad - in particular the "terrorist nations" bit.

Instead of making illogical excuses for it, accept that some of us who have been with Ron Paul *precisely* because of his logical foreign policy and views on collectivism are extremely disappointed by this ad.

We want to know the logic behind the ad, and no one here has posted a logical response, instead you keep attacking the OP based on his origins.

According to all the speeches I've watched, the "terrorist nations" bit is inconsistent with Ron Paul's rhetoric.
 
srmpass98 said:
I do consider myself American. I used that original argument as a provocative post to illustrate a very important point: its the individual which defines what is and what isn't, not the nation in question. That is why putting a blanket denial (which was somewhat inferred by the ad) is a very simplistic approach to a complex phenomenon: terrorist threats. A threat from one radical individual from Europe is the same as one from a "terrorist" nation, nevermind the obvious implications of branding said nation as terrorist.

I'm pretty happy the HQ have retracted from this obvious extreme statement.

As far as labor is concerned, many immigrants occupy cheap labor, others like myself enjoy salaries in six figures. One salient point is indisputable, all immigrants have a positive impact on the economy of the nation. The real question remains, where is the limit if any? How many more can this economy sustain, especially in light of the current crisis of inflation and a declining dollar? Real questions hopefully will be realized after this election.
Click to expand...

"I'm pretty happy the HQ have retracted from this obvious extreme statement."

Did they retract it? Good, cause otherwise they are going to lose my support.
 
Why do you people believe that a bunch of foreigners somehow have a right to be educated in this country?

eaglescout said:
"I'm pretty happy the HQ have retracted from this obvious extreme statement."

Did they retract it? Good, cause otherwise they are going to lose my support.
Click to expand...

You have 18 posts, 15 of them come from this thread and a similar thread.
 
srmpass98 said:
I do consider myself American. I used that original argument as a provocative post to illustrate a very important point: its the individual which defines what is and what isn't, not the nation in question. That is why putting a blanket denial (which was somewhat inferred by the ad) is a very simplistic approach to a complex phenomenon: terrorist threats. A threat from one radical individual from Europe is the same as one from a "terrorist" nation, nevermind the obvious implications of branding said nation as terrorist.

I'm pretty happy the HQ have retracted from this obvious extreme statement.

As far as labor is concerned, many immigrants occupy cheap labor, others like myself enjoy salaries in six figures. One salient point is indisputable, all immigrants have a positive impact on the economy of the nation. The real question remains, where is the limit if any? How many more can this economy sustain, especially in light of the current crisis of inflation and a declining dollar? Real questions hopefully will be realized after this election.
Click to expand...

literatim said:
Why do you people believe that a bunch of foreigners somehow have a right to be educated in this country?



You have 18 posts, 15 of them come from this thread and a similar thread.
Click to expand...

"Why do you people believe that a bunch of foreigners somehow have a right to be educated in this country?"

I don't. Read Justin Raimondo's criticism. It's got nothing to do with visas. It's got to do with the fact that "terrorist nations" contradicts Ron Paul's rhetoric on foreign policy and individualism. If he wants to do away with all visas, I'm fine with that.
 
Immigration and Paul

I disagree with a lot of people here. As an Arizonan, I'm sick of immigration. All of it. I'm sure this ad was targeted at the Paul's Tancredo and Hunter refugees. I'm one of them. Not all of Paul's supporters are like me, but I'm sure a lot are.

I support Paul because he is consistent; I know what I'm getting. While he doesn't support a border fence (unfortunately) he does support abolishing the welfare incentives for coming here. That's more than the other candidates would do. Welfare and government incentives might not apply to many incoming students, but given the bizarre minority preferences system in the U.S., I'd just as soon not invite another foreigner with a potential persecution-complex, especially into the education system which is ground-zero for instigating ethnic grievances.

The initiator of this thread should look at this from his own perspective. If America were poor and overcrowded, would Pakistan willingly accept, say, 30 million of us Christians as migrants? I don't think they --or any other sanely governed nation-- would. To paraphrase Paul, look at what you are doing from the perspective of who you are doing it to. It could be a cause for blowback.

Perhaps when we get Mexico's ~30 million "migrants" under control, when we are not being ethnically cleansed by taxation (taxation for the purpose of reproductive benefits for foreigners), and when we the people of the United States are finally asked if we'd like to be ethnically and culturally replaced via mass immigration, then we'd be ready to invite more people into our country. As of now, many of us are fed up.

By the way, I've donated $1700 to Paul's campaign and have the bumper sticker and lawn sign. I'm dedicated to both a complete immigration moratorium and to Paul's campaign.
 
I'll keep it simple.

If Ron Paul does not edit his immigration message, he's fucked.

You've just alienated thousands upon thousands of ardent supporters Dr. Paul.

LISTEN to them!
 
So just send up a request to Dr. Paul to either fix or remove the ad. He's already taken the time to clarify that the ad doesn't properly reflect his position. It's just that in the process of shortening the add to a 30-second spot somebody shortened to much. No biggie. Ask Dr. Paul to fix or remove the ad and he probably will. That'll end this debate.
 
Fallout from this ad continues.


Even Paul Can Pander

David Weigel
December 31, 2007

roughcutpaul.jpg


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.

http://reason.com/blog/show/124149.html
Click to expand...



This ad and its amazingly neoconish wording and demagoguery could be the biggest blunder of Ron Paul campaign, one that could unravel it and I hope I'm very wrong on this.

Justin Raimondo is not the only one we may have lost or could lose because of this totally unnecessary shift in tone and message. If this ad is not pulled, it could rob a very motivated anti war segment of RP supporters of their enthusiasm for his candidacy. He is still the best candidate on some key issues important to many people but not many people reach into their wallets or get inspired with a zeal just because they want to fix fiscal policies. This is just gut feeling but this one reckless shift in message has the potential to dampen support of some of the most driven people Ron Paul’s views on war/foreign policy/liberties had inspired.



rexsolomon said:
This is where Dr. Paul is flat out wrong. Primarily because of his distrust for the CIA, and lack of experience working inside the CIA.

It would be so easy for sleeper terrorists to be shipped to US ally countries such as Britain to study, then have them apply with a different passport in Ivy League schools here in the USA.

The ad should be edited, and the words "Terrorist Nations" must be removed.

The ad should say instead "Conduct in-depth review of student visas from openly anti-American countries". No religious references need be included. (It is still lame, as I have explained.)

The "Birthright Citizenship" portion should also be edited. Instead, it should say "Strictly enforce the 'under the jurisdiction' clause of the birthright citizenship law" as Dr. Paul consistently argued on air many times.

Sadly the Ron Paul campaign wants to sound like Tancredo. Unfortunately Dr. Paul may just end up like Tancredo with this badly-made ad. Like Tancredo, Dr. Paul may end up talking to a room with four people and chairs for 60. Stop pandering!

The root of this problem is that Dr. Paul has no experience inside the CIA. Once he becomes President, he can direct the CIA to focus on protecting the USA, rather than regime change overseas. This ad just goes to show that Dr. Paul really, BADLY needs the 'Just War' ad that I have suggested in this forum. Sadly no one listened and the damage is already done.

Last comment. Only the paranoid survive. Tell Dr. Paul not to trust the Ad companies who made that immigration video. They are circling and lobbying Dr. Paul because of the millions donated to him - but they may be playing him for a fool, and may be working for the other candidates on a personal basis. I have noted that 35% of the immigration ad message is not consistent with Dr. Paul's previous statements. Subtle changes in the message can kill Dr. Paul's campaign.

The earlier ads were far less professional and cheesy - but 100% consistent with Dr. Paul.
Click to expand...

I reluctantly agree with all the key points you made.
 
While I don't like the "student visas" part of this ad, I would argue the ad is otherwise consistent with Ron Paul's statements on immigration. If 35% of this ad is inconsistent with this message, what else was inconsistent?
 
Duckman said:
While I don't like the "student visas" part of this ad, I would argue the ad is otherwise consistent with Ron Paul's statements on immigration. If 35% of this ad is inconsistent with this message, what else was inconsistent?
Click to expand...

Just the student visa bit. The rest of the ad was fine. I would have worded it, "More strict scrutiny for student visas".
 
Raimondo criticizes Paul but Raimondo uses the "terrorist nation" phrase too (pot calling the kettle black):

. The US – whose Draconian sanctions are responsible for the deaths of 5,000 Iraqi children per month – is itself the biggest terrorist nation on earth.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j032601.html
Click to expand...

If using the phrase makes you a warmongering neocon, then Raimondo is a warmongering neocon.

Paul's ad is clearly anti-neocon and anti-war.

See http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-stop-terrorists-from-following.html
 
Only reason I do not like the ad is because it says no more visa's for students. Shouldn't it be no more visas ( i.e. no ' between the a and the s).
 
shoms_w said:
Only reason I do not like the ad is because it says no more visa's for students. Shouldn't it be no more visas ( i.e. no ' between the a and the s).
Click to expand...

Expired student visa's led to the demise of the twin towers, I dont get why people dont understand that this would be something early in the presidency while we mend relations with nations that now hate and want to kill Americans.

It is a protection for Americans, and after the implementation of great forieign Policy strategies the hatred would leave and the student, legal Immigrants, vacationers, would come.
 
Corydoras said:
Well, no, actually only one of them was on a student visa. The others were all on tourist or business visas.
Click to expand...

Then no business or tourist visas either until relations are mended and American safety is better safeguarded through great foreign policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Working Poor
Deathly Ill
Replies
9
Views
3K
Liberty_Tree
Liberty_Tree
osan
Capitalism is a TOOL.
Replies
0
Views
111
osan
osan
osan
World Gone Mad
Replies
2
Views
2K
osan
osan
T
Why MAGA, not MUSAGA?
Replies
7
Views
129
nikcers
nikcers
Matt Collins
Rand releases statement on Rubio nomination to Secretary of State:
Replies
16
Views
2K
osan
osan
Back
Top