Immigration ad disinformation

[hawks4ronpaul]

Paul's visa policy is a peaceful, non-interventionist way to prevent terrorism and prevent war yet sites like antiwar.com are cooking up a fake "betrayal of anti-war supporters" spin.

The truth is that the visa policy SUPPORTS RP's ANTI-war policy and PRO-civil liberties policy. See http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-stop-terrorists-from-following.html

Spread the truth.

PS: There is another problem that Paul's visa policy is to "restrict" while the ad says "no more," but either visa policy would be anti-war.

 

[integrity]

nice site

 

[Liberty Star]

The phrase "terrorist nations" is pro-war and straight out of neocons book of war-launching phrases. Visa or immig policy is not the issue here.

Frankly, if there is a 'terrorist nation' out there, it is a threat to US and world peace and I do want to go to war against them and destroy that 'terrorist nation'. Isn't that what we have been doing in Iraq for last few years? If it were not for NIE, Iran could have been next following this rationale.

 

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

The phrase "terrorist nations" is pro-war and straight out of neocons book of war-launching phrases. Visa or immig policy is not the issue here.

Frankly, if there is a 'terrorist nation' out there, it is a threat to US and world peace and I do want to go to war against them and destroy that 'terrorist nation'. Isn't that what we have been doing in Iraq for last few years? If it were not for NIE, Iran could have been next following this rationale.

Well, he did name Saudia Arabia in the piece of legislation posted on these forums. Try to contact him and let him you wouldn't mind going to war with Saudia Arabia.

 

[nate895]

I'd support any anti-terror legislation if it doesn't violate the Constitution.

Here's what we need to say to the world, and I hope Paul agrees,

"We are withdrawing all troops from countries overseas, and protecting our homeland with them. No more asking America to do your dirty work, fight your own wars. With that being said, if anyone so much as puts one of their dirty little fingers onto our soil, with intent of doing us harm, be warned, because we will send our troops out to hunt you down and kill every last one of you pieces human filth."

I would say this so that we can scare the pants off of the Islamists, because many of them would want to take the West down no matter what because of their demented faith in the self-sufficiency of the Koran, which actually does, indeed, tell you you should kill infidels.

 

[Liberty Star]

Well, he did name Saudia Arabia in the piece of legislation posted on these forums. Try to contact him and let him you wouldn't mind going to war with Saudia Arabia.

I don't believe he would characterize any country on the whole as a 'terrorist nation' given what he has been professing for last 6 months and more importantly that's something I would never find acceptable let alone go to war on that basis. That's a very flawed way of classifying nations especially when we seem to think we understand catalysts and causes behind terrorism.

I'd support any anti-terror legislation if it doesn't violate the Constitution.

Here's what we need to say to the world, and I hope Paul agrees,

"We are withdrawing all troops from countries overseas, and protecting our homeland with them. No more asking America to do your dirty work, fight your own wars. With that being said, if anyone so much as puts one of their dirty little fingers onto our soil, with intent of doing us harm, be warned, because we will send our troops out to hunt you down and kill every last one of you pieces human filth."

LOL I agree partially, I don't think completely removing all military presence from other lands would eleimnate threats against us automatically and don't think we have to go that drastic, although it could make us as safe as Canada or Greenland is. Greatly limiting out interventionism policies and ending our financial and military sponsorship of one of the parties in Israel-Arab land dispute would go a long way in stablizing mid east situation and reducing anti-American sentiment in that part of the world.
I won't use that highlighted phrase in the last line though and RP won't either I'm certain, last thing we need is to go on defense again on race relations/human equality issue. Collective punishment idea is not in tume with RP philosophy, at least the way I have come to understand it.

 

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

I don't believe he would characterize any country on the whole as a 'terrorist nation' given what he has been professing for last 6 months and more importantly that's something I would never find acceptable let alone go to war on that basis. That's a very flawed way of classifying nations especially when we seem to think we understand catalysts and causes behind terrorism.

So you wouldn't go to war against a nation harboring/supporting terrorists targeting our nation....wow. I'm glad Ron Paul realizes we can legitamtely go to war through the constitional process. I get this idea that you think Islamic terrorism wouldn't be an issue if we just left. Google "Islamic Seperatism." People are dying in Asia and Africa because of Islamic Seperatist and Supremacist movements. And, search for "Undercover Mosque" on youtube. A real eye opener to the type of Islam Saudia Arabia exports.

We don't need to be defending anyone but ourselves. We can do a great job defending ourselves by prudent access into our nation, and by securing our borders. But, if we are struck by some terror group again, originating from a nation that harbors/supports such groups, we have a legitimate and constitutional process to go to war.

 

[jon_perez]

antiwar.com was very right to question the usage of neocon vocabulary: "terrorist nations"

I too, find the ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T-iJKwskH4 very disappointing and a betrayal of libertarian principles and ideas.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

Are we not allowed to say "democratic nation" because neocons said it too?

Not everyone in the democratic nation is democratic.

The anti-neocon, anti-war, and anti-American crowds seem to love the "terrorist nation" phrase too:

Rosie O'Donnell Calls US a Terrorist Nation

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=12&num=13448

Raimondo criticizes Paul but Raimondo uses the 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

I do not think "terrorist nation" is pro-war. I think we need a verb.

Otherwise, Rosie O'Donnell and Raimondo could be arrested for incitement to act.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

nice site

Thank you.

 

[0zzy]

Can everyone and anyone stop this madness? It's over, contact the campaign if need be, but we must work to get him elected nonetheless.

 

[rexsolomon]

Immigration ad disinformation?
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the immigration ad ITSELF contains disinformation.
Fire the s.o.bs who created the ad. They are just after the millions in RP donations, they are openly subverting Dr. Paul's message and may be working for the other candidates.
Everyone say: 'Corporatism'.

 

[eaglescout]

Can everyone and anyone stop this madness? It's over, contact the campaign if need be, but we must work to get him elected nonetheless.

"Can everyone and anyone stop this madness? It's over, contact the campaign if need be, but we must work to get him elected nonetheless."

How does he expect to be elected when his own message is subverted by the latest ad?

How does he expect to be elected when his own longtime supporters can't defend him anymore?

 

[jabrownie]

He can expect it because in a long drawn out bid for the presidency, not every single thing is perfect and goes your way. Mistakes do happen, a piece of bad reporting comes here goes there, sometimes miscommunication occurs, and yes, sometimes a message in an ad goes a bit off. It has probably happened with every single candidate who has ever ran for public office, large or small. It's not the end of the world, it's not that big.

As for defending him, that's easy. Just point to the numerous bills he has sponsered that make up his record. Which one is more powerful, a long record of consistency or a two second blip that he's already tried to clarify, and which is understandably an over-effort to shorten a large position into two seconds.

 

[eaglescout]

He can expect it because in a long drawn out bid for the presidency, not every single thing is perfect and goes your way. Mistakes do happen, a piece of bad reporting comes here goes there, sometimes miscommunication occurs, and yes, sometimes a message in an ad goes a bit off. It has probably happened with every single candidate who has ever ran for public office, large or small. It's not the end of the world, it's not that big.

As for defending him, that's easy. Just point to the numerous bills he has sponsered that make up his record. Which one is more powerful, a long record of consistency or a two second blip that he's already tried to clarify, and which is understandably an over-effort to shorten a large position into two seconds.

I agree with the first part of your response.

As for the second, his votes actually make it difficult to show he is not racist. I'm out there campaigning for Ron Paul, and suddenly this ad comes up, contradicting my main reason for supporting him, and my biggest selling point for Ron Paul - the fact that he doesn't pander or resort to cheap language and scare tactics.

 

[0zzy]

"Can everyone and anyone stop this madness? It's over, contact the campaign if need be, but we must work to get him elected nonetheless."

How does he expect to be elected when his own message is subverted by the latest ad?


How does he expect to be elected when his own longtime supporters can't defend him anymore?

How does complaining on the forums for 2 days straight help the campaign?

Does the campaign read the forums?

Why don't you call them?

 

[eaglescout]

How does complaining on the forums for 2 days straight help the campaign?

Does the campaign read the forums?

Why don't you call them?

"Why don't you call them?"

I will. I wanted to ensure I wasn't wasting their time, by discussing the ad with others first and making sure my objections make sense.

I know that the Ron Paul facebook group is frequented by some of the campaign staff and advisers. I assumed the same would be the case here and/or someone would address (or might already have addressed) my concerns so I wouldn't be stealing precious time from the campaign.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

All immigration/visa policies are collectivist (Americans vs. non-Americans). Paul has said that there must be some limit (we cannot admit 6 billion people). A quota of 1 million is as collectivist as a quota of 0.

However, the point of this thread is that Paul's ad is anti-neocon and anti-war.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-stop-terrorists-from-following.html

 

[jabrownie]

I agree with the first part of your response.

As for the second, his votes actually make it difficult to show he is not racist. I'm out there campaigning for Ron Paul, and suddenly this ad comes up, contradicting my main reason for supporting him, and my biggest selling point for Ron Paul - the fact that he doesn't pander or resort to cheap language and scare tactics.

I was unaware that his voting record in Congress somehow made it 'difficult to show he is not racist'. Please feel free to send me a PM and enlighten me.

Try pointing out the giant 'For Sale' sign that has been on the white house/Congress, and that will remain there if anyone else is elected. Explain that Ron Paul is one of the only guys in the place who isn't bought and paid for by big business and lobbyists. He actually is by the people, for the people, instead of by the mega-corporation, for the mega-corporation. That one seems to work well for me. My closing one liner is "it's about time we had an honest man of substance in there instead of just another empty suit!" Most people seem to agree with that and it rises above any smaller disputes about one particular issue or another.

 

[jon_perez]

All immigration/visa policies are collectivist (Americans vs. non-Americans). Paul has said that there must be some limit (we cannot admit 6 billion people). A quota of 1 million is as collectivist as a quota of 0.

So what are you trying to say here? That there should be a quota or not?

I think you're very confused.

However, the point of this thread is that Paul's ad is anti-neocon and anti-war.

No it isn't. The ad has nothing to do with neocons or war and only has to do with immigration, except that it resorts to the neocon doubletalk of labelling nations as "terrorist".

When people like Rosie O' Donnell or Geraldo use the term "terrorist nation" to describe the US, it is not that they want to validate the term but rather more of a sarcastic comment on the neocons' disingenuous vocabulary.

I think you are either completely confused yourself or are deliberately trying to confuse others with disingenuous propaganda and reasoning.

What the ad is, is tantamount to accepting/surrendering to the neocons' world view and as such is disgraceful to the RP campaign.