I am pissed off.

[Ozwest]

"Let me guess...

Your a Republican who voted for Bush.
Reply With Quote"

Hell yes I voted for Bush over John Kerry.

I didn't like Bush, but he was the lessor of two evils and I'd do it again. We got to EXCELLENT supreme court justices out of Bush.

Ron Paul is my first choice

Duncan Hunter is my second.

Then Romney, Thompson, etc.

As long as it's not a Democrats, I'll be happy.

AND I LOVE PAUL'S NEW AD!

Spoken like a true sheeple.

Wake up bro! Your fixation on political party allegience makes you a puppet, easily manipulated by the system.

If x-Democrats and Independents were as politically gullible as yourself, Ron Paul would not have a chance in this election.

Do everyone a favor, and don't allienate loyal Ron Paul supporters because your stuck in some Republican time warp.

Ron Paul unites us all!

 

[acroso]

Republican

I'm a Republican first and a Ron Paul supporter second.

I'll vote for Giuliani if I have to.

As they say...anyone but the bitch.

 

[jmarinara]

Ron Paul is my first choice

Great. Thank you, we all appreciate the support.

Now please stop being crude. Paul does have a contingent of supporters from the left who, surprisingly to Republicans like you and I, love the constitution and freedom. Yes, I too find it hard to deal with sometimes, but we're all in this together and I'm sure I've torqued them plenty, plenty of times.

I'm glad they're here, I'm glad you're here. Let's try and all get along so that both sides get a majority of what they want, ok?

 

[Dr.3D]

I'm a Republican first and a Ron Paul supporter second.

I'll vote for Giuliani if I have to.

As they say...anyone but the bitch.

Argh!! a party supporter. I vote for who I think will do what is best for our nation.

 

[lbadragan]

Ya, blanket denial based on nationality. I guess in that case a supporter like me has no business being here given that I come from a "terrorist" nation.

No, blanket denial based on a rational risk assesment. In the age where a gallon of uranium can be used to wipe out Chicago, bringing in people from Japan rather than Pakistan is a whole lot safer. This is not about you. This is about national security.

 

[jmarinara]

I got citizenship 2 years ago. I did go through the intense legal process of naturalization (trust me the paperwork is 5 binders worth).

And yes, I got off the phone with HQ. They meant precisely what they meant in that ad. I was pretty livid to say the least =(. Its not a call for more strict scrutiny, its a discriminatory blanket denial based on nationality. I guess HQ doesn't like supporters like us!

Welcome to the country, I'm glad you're here. And I'm glad you're supporting Ron Paul.

I'm not real sure what you mean by them not wanting your support, but let me encourage you we are all glad you support our guy. Keep the faith and understand that even super patriots like Paul make mistakes sometimes. Heck, even Washington had slaves.

The country I'm sure you dreamed of (and for I dream as well) when you applied for citizenship is within reach with Ron Paul.

Keep the faith my friend. We need you.

 

[jmarinara]

Spoken like a true sheeple.

Wake up bro! Your fixation on political party allegience makes you a puppet, easily manipulated by the system.

If x-Democrats and Independents were as politically gullible as yourself, Ron Paul would not have a chance in this election.

Do everyone a favor, and don't allienate loyal Ron Paul supporters because your stuck in some Republican time warp.

Ron Paul unites us all!

Relax dude, you're only making the fight worse. He's a Republican and is proud of it. Ok, let it go.

He's voting Paul, that's the important thing.

 

[acroso]

All illegal aliens should be deported.

 

[Ozwest]

I'm a Republican first and a Ron Paul supporter second.

I'll vote for Giuliani if I have to.

As they say...anyone but the bitch.

Yes, the wonderful Republican Party which is doing everything in its power to belittle and marginalize Ron Paul.

If he manages to win this election, it will be despite, and not because, of the Republican Party.

 

[Dr.3D]

I got citizenship 2 years ago. I did go through the intense legal process of naturalization (trust me the paperwork is 5 binders worth).

And yes, I got off the phone with HQ. They meant precisely what they meant in that ad. I was pretty livid to say the least =(. Its not a call for more strict scrutiny, its a discriminatory blanket denial based on nationality. I guess HQ doesn't like supporters like us!

Then you don't come from a terrorist nation! You are a United States citizen and have no loyalty to any terrorist nation unless of course you believe the United States is a terrorist nation.

 

[srmpass98]

No, blanket denial based on a rational risk assesment. In the age where a gallon of uranium can be used to wipe out Chicago, bringing in people from Japan rather than Pakistan is a whole lot safer. This is not about you. This is about national security.

This is hardly about me really. Trust me when I say this, a large majority of the people that are there espouse the same fundamental ideals as any American. For us to sacrifice a seemingly coherent foreign policy prerogative on the basis of "risk" assessment discrimination is beyond me really.

Why can we not increase the barriers towards student visas in problematic nations? Make it more transparent and also make it so we allow entry to those people that are here for higher education, job etc. A blanket refusal is on par with a refusal without prejudice, without judgment and without considerations merely based on nationality.

This is what I am getting at. Ask yourself this, why is a person like me vehemently supporting no amnesty, stronger border security etc but not this? Its a wrong position and severely detrimental in normalizing ties with the middle east.

 

[srmpass98]

Then you don't come from a terrorist nation! You are a United States citizen and have no loyalty to any terrorist nation unless of course you believe the United States is a terrorist nation.

This isn't a question of my loyalties. Let me put it this way, if we were to apply Ron Paul's position on student visas 10 years ago, I wouldn't be here today to support him! This is the point I'm trying to get across.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I'm not, at all, alarmed by this....it's a true that nations as Saudi Arabia have a lot more terrorists in them than others. Yes, it limits the opportunity for some, but it also offers far greater protection for individuals in the United States.

And before you criticize me....I'm one that's known to rant and rave when someone mentions "islamofascists" or other such things....as I honestly believe most of it is provoked by us, funded by us, or caused (directly or indirectly) by us. Still, until things settle down (it'll take years...if you can have blowback after 40-50 years, double or triple that with a non-interventionist foreign policy before things completely neutralize).

Also, Ron has his own opinions, ideals, and beliefs...we may not always agree with all of them, but seriously; bugger off! There's a few of us here (I think we're all guilty of it) that want to "have Ron all to ourselves", and as such, we want to try to bend Ron exactly to our own thinking or policies. Would you seriously abandon Paul over this single issue? Is not that being just like most of the neocons, who support Ron on every issue but the war (and thus, they won't vote for him just because of that ONE issue)?

I was not, at all, surprised by the ad....I'm quite surprised most of you are shocked to hear Ron say this; he spoke/wrote about this quite a while ago (I remember reading about it when I first heard about Ron).

Stop bashing Ron because he doesn't fit your exact agenda/beliefs. If he fits you to an absolute "T", and you're both in 100% agreement (I know there's a few, including myself, on this boards who are like this), but...if you're not....well, let me put it this way; you're not going to change the man overnight...and there's some things you're never going to chance.

Just leave Ron Paul alone; this is his campaign, and he's running for President; not you, or me, or anyone else; Ron Paul and Ron Paul alone.

edit:

Also, as Ron constantly says "I want us to be friends with countries, I want us to trade with countries"...just because your friends doesn't mean that we have to let them over to our house; after all, it's our own house, and we can control when our "friends" come over or not.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Why can we not increase the barriers towards student visas in problematic nations? Make it more transparent and also make it so we allow entry to those people that are here for higher education, job etc.

That is precisely what the legislation Dr. Paul introduced was intended to do.

A blanket refusal is on par with a refusal without prejudice, without judgment and without considerations merely based on nationality.

Again, please tell us if someone at campaign HQ actually told you that Dr. Paul supported a blanket denial of visas based on nationality. If so, what was that person's name?

 

[bbachtung]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

If you can find a better candidate, then go for it.

This is all about who you want to support, and if you make a certain issue your litmus test for a candidate, then that is your make-or-break issue and I respect you for your consistency and for sticking to your principles.

I support Ron Paul. I supported him before this commercial, and I support him after the commercial.

 

[james1844]

First of all, it doesn't totally cut off all student visas from the countries in question. It simply subjects them to closer scrutiny.

Secondly, Arabs from other countries not known to sponsor terrorism would still be entering the US.

Your assertion above is as specious as saying that just because the bill subjects Sudanese visas to closer scrutiny, that Ron Paul wants to cut out all immigration from Africa because he hates Black people.

You display a remarkable obsession with race for someone who is concerned about Dr. Paul living up to his ideas on collectivism. Try, if you can, to look past the PC hysterics and grasp the geopolitical implications of leveraging such a peaceful, diplomatic, and non-interventionist measure that provides incentive for certain governments and their citizens to stop aiding and abetting our enemies.

Okay, I'll take that on.

Politics toward race matter. Every major incidence of civil disturbance in America's recent history has been the result of policing conflicts with minorities. Think about the trigger for the 93' L.A. riots. l live in DC, parts of the city were nearly destroyed in riots after King was assassinated. Both of these urban disturbances had high dollar, long term impacts for the financial and public health for both cities. So, there can be real impacts of race based policies.

If we engage in policies that, for whatever reason, differentially impact one race over another then we are undermining one of the core aspects of what it means to be an American - equality before the law. I think the constitution says it best "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...". So, not only does it have practical dollar and policy impacts, it also matters for the national soul.

I am very concerned about race. I do believe a Paul adminstration which actually implemented policies which were racially neutral would be a great boon to many minorities. Denying student visas based on country of origin in my view is shortsigned and defacto racist as its practical application would be target certain ethnic groups. Its a bad policy.

 

[Liberty Star]

Tancredo was against visas for students from 'terrorist nations' more so than this ad's tone suggests RP is, where did he end up?

Ron Paul campaign is making a blunder here imo, this could effect their fund raising also going forward.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=748446&postcount=141

 

[Ozwest]

This is hardly about me really. Trust me when I say this, a large majority of the people that are there espouse the same fundamental ideals as any American. For us to sacrifice a seemingly coherent foreign policy prerogative on the basis of "risk" assessment discrimination is beyond me really.

Why can we not increase the barriers towards student visas in problematic nations? Make it more transparent and also make it so we allow entry to those people that are here for higher education, job etc. A blanket refusal is on par with a refusal without prejudice, without judgment and without considerations merely based on nationality.

This is what I am getting at. Ask yourself this, why is a person like me vehemently supporting no amnesty, stronger border security etc but not this? Its a wrong position and severely detrimental in normalizing ties with the middle east.

As I understand it, Ron Paul is not proposing a "blanket" refusal of all visa applications from certain countries, but rather "closer scrutiny" of applications from certain countries.

If it is the latter, I agree with his position, as it is unfortunate, but necessary, considering the troubled times we live in. If it is a "blanket" ban, I would agree it oversteps the mark, and I would be troubled.

There is a big difference here. Which of these two policies is Ron Paul advocating?

 

[Spirit of '76]

Okay, I'll take that on.

Politics toward race matter. Every major incidence of civil disturbance in America's recent history has been the result of policing conflicts with minorities. Think about the trigger for the 93' L.A. riots. l live in DC, parts of the city were nearly destroyed in riots after King was assassinated. Both of these urban disturbances had high dollar, long term impacts for the financial and public health for both cities. So, there can be real impacts of race based policies.

If we engage in policies that, for whatever reason, differentially impact one race over another then we are undermining one of the core aspects of what it means to be an American - equality before the law. I think the constitution says it best "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...". So, not only does it have practical dollar and policy impacts, it also matters for the national soul.

I am very concerned about race. I do believe a Paul adminstration which actually implemented policies which were racially neutral would be a great boon to many minorities. Denying student visas based on country of origin in my view is shortsigned and defacto racist as its practical application would be target certain ethnic groups. Its a bad policy.

Your views on the importance of racial politics are all well and good, but you have completely neglected to address the crux of the issue here, which is that the legislation Dr. Paul introduced does not provide for a blanket denial of visas based on nationality, and that closer scrutiny of student visa applications from citizens of certain political entities does not in any way equate to a blanket denial based on race.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I am very concerned about race. I do believe a Paul adminstration which actually implemented policies which were racially neutral would be a great boon to many minorities. Denying student visas based on country of origin in my view is shortsigned and defacto racist as its practical application would be target certain ethnic groups. Its a bad policy.

at the same time though, you're talking about two entirely different things....immigration lies more along the lines of foreign policy, while equal treatment is something that is more domestic....I don't think Ron is looking at this, at all in a racial manner, but in terms of numbers.

what would you say if 85% of Country X was terrorists....would you still want us to have a more open arms policy for people desiring visas in that country?

also....something I wanted to get out here (and if you delve into this, you'll piss off any Libertarian if you suggest otherwise).

we don't need the law to make us equal; we need equal treatment under the law......this is the entire philosophy of collectivism vs individualism.