Rebutal
1. To start with, this policy is far less racist than an entire WAR on the Middle East. We don't even show casualties of the native Iraqiis, nor do we say how many we have imprisoned in Abu Ghraib. I sincerely believe that a change in foreign policy toward Ron Paul's libertarian ideals is the only way to make Americans think of other global citizens as human beings. Stopping a war against the growing number of opposition to America is the first step in changing policy. That is where our focus needs to be held because it is the most vital step in achieving basic human rights for everybody on the planet. Ron Paul's support for libertarian foreign policy is evolutionary and revolutionary when considering what kinds of foreign policies super powers have had up to this date.
2. First of all, do not use politcal jargon when talking about Ron Paul. He is not a flip flopper. He isn't even a politician as I have come to understand the word. Ron Paul has basic beliefs that he stands behind and uses to formulate policies. The Constitution is absolutely one of his major beliefs. One of the beautiful things about the Constitution is that it is diachronic, that is, it can last throughout time. The ability to revise and rebuild based on current day needs allow American beliefs to adapt to the modern necesities. This is vitally important. It is part of the Constitution to be able to do this, and Ron Paul absolutely stands behind the Constitution when he wishes to revise it. If you still think that the basic premise of revising the Constitution is bad, look to women's right to vote, the abolition of slavery, and a couple of other things that we now consider pretty important. Still, I understand if you disagree with him. That is okay. We live in America where we have the first amendment. Formulate the reasons why you believe that birthright citizenship is important and feel free to argue them with anyone on this sight or elsewhere. Ron Paul is not a 'flip flopper', but he certainly does use his mind. If you were to present him with a strong argument for your cause, then I'm sure that he would at least consider it, and probably argue back. That is what we all need to do if we want to strengthen our own beliefs.
3. I really don't know what you are trying to say here. Ron Paul is the only candidate who will actually fix America's foreign policy and therefore help to secure our fiscal standing. He is the only fiscally responsible candidate as far as I'm concerned. If you don't understand that Obama and the rest of the Democrats are not fiscally prudent yet, then you should probably do some more reading into Ron Paul's ideas versus Hillary Clinton's. There is a major difference between the basic philosophies of the Republican (libertarian?) and Democrat (socialist?) parties. This is my main reason for supporting Ron Paul, and I believe that it is his most important, because when you get right down to it, economics dictates the world, not dictators.
4. To be completely honest with you, I agree, and it was certainly a point of concern for me. However, Ron Paul is a reasonable person and the best solution is to begin to create a stir for your cause. Based on the emails that I've gotten from the official campaign, and from everything that I've observed from Ron Paul, I sincerely believe that if you create enough concern for this issue, then it will be addressed by President Paul. I can't help but agree with you and say that it is incongruent with the rest of his policies, but the nice thing about Ron Paul is that if you ever need to take him as the lesser of two evils, he will always win. This position is just the tip of the iceberg when considering the issues that other politicians have brought up with the war on 'Islamic fundamentalists'. At least Paul doesn't want to nuke Iran.
5. I disagree with you here. There is a reason that Al Queda and Hezbollah and many other terrorist groups have at least originated from the Middle East. You are right about terrorism being a result of political and economic factors, but how did you miss that all of those factors are readily available in the Middle East. That doesn't mean that it's right that we target populations for the destructive forces of few, but it does at least make sense. If we really want to put an end to terrorism, then we must change our foreign policy. We ourselves have been major contributors to the political and economic problems in the Middle East. We are still doing so today (watch the documentary No End in Sight). What we as a nation need to do is exactly what Dr. Paul prescribes. We need to stop these entangling relations with Israel (and others) and begin to have free trade with all. That is the true way to fix the economic and political problems of the Middle East. If we are to make such a drastic change in foreign policy that would be upheld by future generations, then I was thinking that we might think of issuing an appology to the Middle East. A sincere speech of regret from President Paul, and then outlying our new goals and policies. That approach might at least slow down the future of terrorism and hopefully bring some sort of humanity to both us and them. That is what I look forward to, and hope that you do too. Thank you for raising your concerns, because thinking about these sort of things is what makes Ron Paul supporters individuals, and other assorted supporters a 'collective force'. We care about the issues and that makes us larger than just a vote. We are a movement, a revolution. We need to keep thinking and working at it if we want to stay pure and strong. Ron Paul '08, I hope that you agree Damn It.
