“I’ll put them in camps”: Rand Paul mocks GOP field for hardline rhetoric towards illegals

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Are you mad?

You're the insane asshole who's believes himself some kind of telepath.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You're the insane asshole who's believes himself some kind of telepath.

I don't have to be telepathic to understand you don't understand or promote freedom. I just have to read what you type.

 

[CPUd]

I'm glad he's not joining this Twilight Zone of insane bullshit, and making anti-police state statements. He should keep it up. Pandering to the lowest common denominator of blithering subhuman idiots isn't a strategy worth pursuing, as far as I'm concerned.

Yep, as evidenced daily on RPFs, when you are dealing with anyone who refers to immigration as an "invasion", it is pointless to try and make a rational political argument on the topic.

 

[Jan2017]

And if Bush drops out, there is still Rubio, Carly, Graham, and Kasich, all of whom have stronger amnesty bona fides than Rand. What Rand is essentially saying is, "if you want a confused, muddled immigration policy- a policy that is neither hot nor cold, then I'm your man!".

Rand I thought says we should enforce existing immigration policy . . .
I interpret that to mean we do NOT continue to allow Mehhico 28% immigration with a stated policy that caps immigration from any one nation at 7 %

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Yep, as evidenced daily on RPFs, when you are dealing with anyone who refers to immigration as an "invasion", it is pointless to try and make a rational political argument on the topic.

It's one thing to acknowledge an immigration crisis. It's another thing to call for enacting a totalitarian police state to solve the crisis.

 

[William R]

Yep, as evidenced daily on RPFs, when you are dealing with anyone who refers to immigration as an "invasion", it is pointless to try and make a rational political argument on the topic.

When millions of people are streaming across the border when they're not invited I don't know what you call it son, but in my book it's a fugging invasion.

 

[Sola_Fide]

When millions of people are streaming across the border and they aren't invited I don't know what you call it son, but in my book it's a fugging invasion.

Do Kentuckians have to invite people from Ohio to come to their state? No. People are free to move there if they want and Kentucky can't put up a police state and keep them out.

Not one of you immigration statists here have made a case for a qualitative difference between a border in Kentucky and a border in Canada. People are not less free if they reside outside of a line drawn on a map.

 

[jj-]

Do Kentuckians have to invite people from Ohio to come to their state? No. People are free to move there if they want and Kentucky can't put up a police state and keep them out.

Not one of you immigration statists here have made a case for a qualitative difference between a border in Kentucky and a border in Canada. People are not less free if they reside outside of a line drawn on a map.

If Kentucky made an agreement to allow people from Ohio, they should honor it. Otherwise, they should be free to do whatever they want.

 

[William R]

Do Kentuckians have to invite people from Ohio to come to their state? No. People are free to move there if they want and Kentucky can't put up a police state and keep them out.

Not one of you immigration statists here have made a case for a qualitative difference between a border in Kentucky and a border in Canada. People are not less free if they reside outside of a line drawn on a map.

You're a blithering idiot . Ohio and Kentucky are part of the United States. You're an Utopian. Lets import millions of Head Choppin Sunni Arabs to live here. In fact lets move em into your neighborhood.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If Kentucky made an agreement to allow people from Ohio, they should honor it. Otherwise, they should be free to do whatever they want.

Where is there any "agreement"? Aren't people free to travel and move anywhere across borders?

What is it about the border of Kentucky and the border of Canada that changes the level of freedom for people?

 

[jj-]

Aren't people free to travel and move anywhere across borders?

They're as free to do that as they're to cross your door and enter your house.

 

[Sola_Fide]

They're as free to do that as they're to cross your door and enter your house.

Well, of course. No one is advocating that.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I don't have to be telepathic to understand you don't understand or promote freedom. I just have to read what you type.

I pointed out that Rand's comments were going to cost him many votes. Your takeaway from that is I hate freedom.

So yes, that makes you an insane asshole who fancies himself some kind of telepath. You're looney tunes.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Where is there any "agreement"?

It's in the National Archives. It's called the Constitution for the United States of America. You should look it up some time. You might learn something.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Seeing as you promote unlimited immigration and open borders, along with the one-worlder cultural marxists, I'll just bet you would.

It's a good thing that Rand doesn't agree with you.

Rand just wrote an op-ed opposing Trump's eminent domain on the basis of property rights. Sola opposes government immigration controls on the same basis. Marxists don't believe in property rights.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

If you read my post, I said I will be here to read about liberty issues. And keep in mind, this is RonPaulForums.Com .... not RandPaulForums.Com . I would follow Ron Paul to the depths ... His son doesn't cut it.

Try visiting 'www.randpaulforums.com' and see where you'll end up.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Yeah, no chit. Dumb as hell, or looking for a fast exit; which is stupid as hell. Rand needs to find a nice way to bow out... Flat out losing, will destroy any future presidential chances. I don't know what the hell he is doing, but he is not very smart doing whatever it is.

Rand can't bow out now, not after he changed the entire Kentucky election process just so he could run for president. His chance to bow out gracefully was back then.

 

[jj-]

Rand can't bow out now, not after he changed the entire Kentucky election process just so he could run for president. His chance to bow out gracefully was back then.

Technically, he can. If he doesn't send money by September 18, the change is automatically reversed.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It's in the National Archives. It's called the Constitution for the United States of America. You should look it up some time. You might learn something.

Is there something in the Constitution that says that some men are not endowed with unalienable rights? The Bill of Rights says ALL men.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I'd rather he Rand not make the debate and continue to speak against the insanity of popular GOP immigration statism.

Is it really that important?

Aren't there lots more issues more crucial to liberty?

Is unrestricted immigration really that big of an issue for you that you'd be willing to have Rand lose for it?