FU Penn

[Vendico]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ATt7dRu2ZqM

2-29-08 He forgets about Ron Paul but then he says he means the closest one he can agree with is Ron Paul

 

[Flirple]

Penn is being discussed in this thread as well: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1317359

 

[Vendico]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5QK2wPR8IpQ&feature=related

 

[yongrel]

It probably has to do with Ron Paul being a Christian. Penn is a hardcore, no kidding atheist. His license plate says NoGod. I would not be surprised to find out that he is not supporting Ron Paul solely because of RP's faith.

Even if that's true, Penn still rocks. I miss Monkey Tuesday so goddamned much.

 

[MarcS]

My politics are closer to Penn's than Paul's, but Penn isn't running for office, so guess how i'm voting.

 

[OReich]

My politics are closer to Penn's than Paul's, but Penn isn't running for office, so guess how i'm voting.

Just curious, what are his positions that are different from Paul's? I might be more of a Penn-ite than a Paul-ite also.

 

[Flash]

Penn is against border control and believes anyone that opposes illegals are racists.

 

[jbuttell]

You might be a Penn-ite even after what he just said in this clip? errm.

 

[Richie]

Penn speaks the truth about many things, and despite the fact that he's a fellow Libertarian - I can't stand him. "The racist things creeped me out." WHAT racist things? You can't tell me that he's uneducated enough to not read into things like this.

 

[aksmith]

Penn said what a lot of us have thought. Ron does have some baggage. Those newsletters, even though we love Ron, showed a tremendous amount of poor judgment. When you trust people who are not trustworthy, that is baggage.

And the border thing: I agree with Penn. If all Ron was interested in was attrition of illegals through ending benefits, I'd be a lot more comfortable with that position. I am even in favor of deporting illegals who commit any other crime while they're here and ending birthright citizenship for illegals. But there is simply no Constitutional basis for a federal immigration policy. And by arguing that there is, Ron undercuts his stand against the Real I.D.

If I were Penn, I'd be saying the same thing. I'd certainly support Ron, as I am now, but if I were a public person, I'd have to think really hard about what level of support I'd give.

 

[billjarrett]

But there is simply no Constitutional basis for a federal immigration policy.

Maybe I'm interpreting the Constitution wrong, or what you are trying to say wrong, but doesn't article I section 8 state "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" ?

 

[tomveil]

Maybe I'm interpreting the Constitution wrong, or what you are trying to say wrong, but doesn't article I section 8 state "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" ?

/argument

 

[Shellshock1918]

Penn is against border control and believes anyone that opposes illegals are racists.

Gee, what a well founded, solid position to have.

Typical Hollywood.

 

[Flirple]

Gee, what a well founded, solid position to have.

Typical Hollywood.

To be fair to Penn, those aren't his words and I've never heard him say anything so simplistic as that.

 

[aksmith]

Maybe I'm interpreting the Constitution wrong, or what you are trying to say wrong, but doesn't article I section 8 state "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" ?

Yes, it does give control over "naturalization" but that is a different thing from immigration. Up until about 100 years ago, it was settled law that the states regulated immigration and the feds didn't. And if you look back at the history of the Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolution, they is pretty plain as well. It would seem that immigration policy would be an area where the feds had reached into the states and were not expressly allowed to do so.

The Constitution is not a well written document. There are all kinds of weasel words and shadows of meanings in it. Like any other document written by committee it is imperfect and full of compromises. And it is remarkably open to interpretation. But it's pretty clear that the founders never contemplated handing control of immigration over to the central government. Only naturalization.

 

[aksmith]

--

 

[Steve_New_Jersey]

Penn is against border control and believes anyone that opposes illegals are racists.

He is a flipping moron. 100$ says he would NEVER live next to that border or within 500 miles of it if that was the case.

 

[Steve_New_Jersey]

Penn said what a lot of us have thought. Ron does have some baggage. Those newsletters, even though we love Ron, showed a tremendous amount of poor judgment. When you trust people who are not trustworthy, that is baggage.

And the border thing: I agree with Penn. If all Ron was interested in was attrition of illegals through ending benefits, I'd be a lot more comfortable with that position. I am even in favor of deporting illegals who commit any other crime while they're here and ending birthright citizenship for illegals. But there is simply no Constitutional basis for a federal immigration policy. And by arguing that there is, Ron undercuts his stand against the Real I.D.

If I were Penn, I'd be saying the same thing. I'd certainly support Ron, as I am now, but if I were a public person, I'd have to think really hard about what level of support I'd give.

You have to remember that most of those aliens are federal criminals and state criminals. They steal from everyone. I believe it should be the responsibility of the state that holds the border to regulate it. It is a local matter first then a national matter second. If a smaller better equipt state government has control of it it would probably work.

There is nothing stopping Mexicans from going through the checkpoint like everyone else using a passport. If they did not mean to commin crimes against American they would not have to hide. Penn might consider that when he opens his flaper.

 

[Sentient Void]

I believe we do need to have a solid immigration policy and enforce it. It doesn't bother you that illegal immigrants getting paid under the table are able to take advantage of things that legitimate taxpayers pay for? Public services for example? RoadsThe whole federal tax and what not are unfair and illegal as it is, now you think you can justify supporting those who take advantage of these without contributing to them?

It has NOTHING to do with racism. Sure, some people who are against immigration are racists. Just like some people who want to open the borders are for anarchy (talking about extremes here, people). That's a flat-out cop-out for the other argument to instill fear in expressing such an opinion about the issue. Whether you are canadian, mexican, swiss, italian, english, russian, japanese, australian, et al is irrelevant. Many groups of legal immigrants followed the laws and waited until they were allowed to come into this country. They learned the language, busted their ass, got citizenship legally and are contributing members to society who pay taxes (unfair or not).

The way I see it, is if you are here illegally, you should be deported and put to the back of the immigration line. I do believe that many people that have been here for a while now and have become productive members of society should be "grandfathered in", but it needs to stop there.

 

[Jassman]

Penn has at least one valid criticism of Ron Paul's platform -- the border fence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Ron Paul support the installation of a fence along the US/Mexico border? Because Penn did an "Illegal Immigration" episode of his tv show, Bullshit! showing how the border fence would be a stupid waste of taxpayers' money.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?do...l=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

That's part one of the episode. The other two can be located at the sidebar of youtube.