Ron Paul Against Amnesty

Then you also do not believe in Revolution, you are an anarchist.

I do accept revolution as a viable means of overthrowing tyranny. I'm sorry but I don't see how revolution is inconsistent with anything I've said so far.

How do you resolve being a Ron Paul Conservative then?

I do not tend to identify as conservative, unless using the term as a word of convenience in everyday conversation.
 
Last edited:
Yes I do support amnesty. I am personally sorry that many people waded through thicker swamps of BS government protocols to get here, but as I do not believe in countries, borders, citizenship, or registration by other means, there is no alternative but to support amnesty.

:applause:

I was kinda just picking at Chosen's insanity.

I don't support amnesty, but I do support getting lunatics like Chosen out of my life and the lives of others. Furthermore, individual states may determine to allow within their borders those they choose to allow. That is, if we really believe in the "rule of law." Of course, I know for a fact that's not what Chosen supports, he's just using this pedestal to push his fear induced, hate-filled collectivist agenda.

Amnesty? Amnesty from what? An unconstitutional agenda pushed by this nation's lowest common denominator (that being "Chosen"--the redneck messiah--and his ilk)?

Furthermore, these border nazis get all hyped-up over a misdemeanor, start talking about shooting people and what not. Ridiculous.
 
How do you resolve being a Ron Paul Conservative then?

You advocate militarizing the border, care to resolve that with being a "Ron Paul Conservative?"

You advocate eminent domain, care to resolve that with being a "Ron Paul Conservative?"
 
:applause:

I was kinda just picking at Chosen's insanity.

I don't support amnesty, but I do support getting lunatics like Chosen out of my life and the lives of others. Furthermore, individual states may determine to allow within their borders those they choose allow. That is, if we really believe in the "rule of law." Of course, I know for a fact that's not what Chosen supports, he's just using this pedestal to push his fear induced, hate-filled collectivist agenda.

Amnesty? Amnesty from what? An unconstitutional agenda pushed by this nation's lowest common denominator (that being "Chosen"--the redneck messiah--and his ilk)?

Furthermore, these border nazi's get all hyped-up over a misdemeanor, start talking about shooting people and what not. Ridiculous.
I think you are a sociopath. You only demonstrate that you have a limited capacity to argue subjects and then you resort to trying to limit conversation by way of spamming and trying to provoke people. You then try and horde information and attempt to get people banned. Normal people don't do this. Most normal folks get consumed by emotional interactions. You, as indicated in most of your posts here only want to win. Not by issue, not by content, just the desire to win.

I also, believe you are a sociopath because you try and recruit others. It may be some sort of pityplay. You telling the mods you've been here since the beginning etc. You used the pity play on Josh Lowry to try and prevent your expulsion.

If you were just arguing a point well, that would be one thing. But mostly you are just a sociopath trying to "win."

As you have admitted thus far, you want to prevent those who have differing opinions from having a voice.

This I believe, as reviewing your many posts and dozens of daily conflicts and complaints from many folks on this board indicates.

Constituent description:
Most people with a conscience find it very difficult to even imagine what it would be like to be without one. Combine this with a sociopath's efforts to blend in, and the result is that most sociopaths go undetected.

Because they go undetected, they wreak havoc on their family, on people they work with, and on anyone who tries to be their friend. A sociopath deceives, takes what he (or she) wants, and hurts people without any remorse. Sociopaths don't feel guilty. They don't feel sorry for what they've done. They go through life taking what they want and giving nothing back. They manipulate and deceive and convincingly lie without the slightest second thought. They leave a path of confusion and upset in their wake.

Who are these people? Why are they the way they are? Apparently it has little to do with upbringing. Many studies have been done trying to find out what kind of childhood leads to sociopathy. So far, nothing looks likely. They could be from any kind of family. It is partly genetic, and partly mystery.

But researchers have found that the brains of sociopaths function differently than normal people. And their brains function in a way that makes their emotional life unredeemably shallow. And yet they are capable of mimicking emotions like professional actors.

Sociopaths and psychopaths are the same thing. The original name for this disorder was "psychopath" but the general public and media confused it with "psycho" and "psychotic" so in the 1930s the name was changed to sociopath. Recently the media again caused a misperception that sociopaths were always serial killers, so now many call the condition "antisocial personality disorder (ASPD)."

But some experts think ASPD includes many things like narcissism, paranoia, etc., including sociopathy. And others think ASPD is the same thing as sociopathy, but the diagnostic criteria used to describe and diagnose ASPD is different than sociopathy, so for the purposes of this article, we'll stay with the term "sociopathy."

Sociopaths don't have normal affection with other people. They don't feel attached to others. They don't feel love. And that is why they don't have a conscience. If you harmed someone, even someone you didn't know, you would feel guilt and remorse. Why? Because you have a natural affinity for other human beings. You know how it feels to suffer, to fear, to feel anguish. You care about others.
WHAT DO THEY WANT?

This is an interesting question. Of course most of our purposes are strongly influenced by our connections and affections with others. Our relationships with others, and our love for them, give us most of the meaning in life. So if a sociopath doesn't have these things, what is left? What kind of purposes do they have?

The answer is chilling: They want to win. Take away love and relationships and all you have left is winning the game, whatever the game is. If they are in business, it is becoming rich and defeating competitors. If it is sibling rivalry, it is defeating the sibling. If it is a contest, the goal is to dominate. If a sociopath is the envious sort, winning would be making the other lose, or fail, or be frustrated or embarrassed.

A sociopath's goal is to win. And he is willing to do anything at all to win.

Sociopaths have nothing else to think about, so they can be very clever and conniving. Sociopaths are not busy being concerned with relationships or moral dilemmas or conflicting feelings, so they have much more time to think about clever ways to gain your trust and stab you in the back, and how do it without anyone knowing what's happening.

One of the questions in the list above was about boredom. This is a real problem for sociopaths and they seem fanatically driven to prevent boredom. The reason it looms so large for them (and seems so strange to us) is that our relationships with people occupy a good amount of our time and attention and interest us intensely. Take that away and all you have is "playing to win" which is rather shallow and empty in comparison. So boredom is a constant problem for sociopaths and they have an incessant urge to keep up a level of stimulation, even negative stimulation (drama, worry, upset, etc.).

And here I might mention that the research shows sociopaths don't feel emotions the same way normal people do. For example, they don't experience fear as unpleasant. This goes a long way to explaining the inexplicable behavior you'll see in sociopaths. Some feelings that you and I might find intolerable might not bother them at all.

Now if you had passion about a subject and wanted to win an argument because of that, that would be one thing. But time and time again on this board you have demonstrated nothing but contempt for everyone. In my mind you are a sociopath.
 
I do accept revolution as a viable means of overthrowing tyranny. I'm sorry but I don't see how revolution is inconsistent with anything I've said so far.



I do not tend to identify as conservative, unless using the term as a word of convenience in everyday conversation.

I guess I was finding hard to understand how you could support revolt, since the goal of revolution is to create something new. It isn't nihilism. Revolution always creates a new entity and it isn't borderless etc.
 
Ron Paul against Amnesty in 2004:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul150.html
Amnesty and Culture

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

The dictionary defines amnesty as a general pardon for offenders by a government, and the Bush administration’s new proposal to grant legal status to millions of illegal aliens surely meets that definition. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country will not be punished, but rather rewarded with a visa. This is amnesty, plain and simple. Lawbreakers are given legal status, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa.

The president claims that America lacks the political will to deport the eight to twelve million illegal aliens already here, so we have no choice but to grant them visas. But what message does this send to the rest of the world? If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty. The Bush administration proposal does not provide a coherent immigration policy, nor does it address the urgent need for stricter control of our borders. The overwhelming majority of Americans – including legal immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded.

The immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself. Since we have accepted a permanent welfare state, however, we cannot be surprised when some freeloaders and criminals are attracted to our shores. Welfare muddies the question of why immigrants want to come here.

Illegal immigrants also threaten to place a tremendous strain on federal social entitlement programs. Under the Bush proposal, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs – programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning. Social Security is in serious trouble already, and sending benefits abroad to millions of illegal aliens who once worked here will cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. Every American who hopes to collect Social Security someday should stridently oppose the President’s proposal.

Financial considerations aside, we cannot continue to ignore the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. This is a basic human desire that Americans understand, especially when so many immigrants are born into hopeless poverty in their own nations. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. More importantly, we expect immigrants to respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government. After all, a lack of respect for the rule of law causes much of the poverty around the world that immigrants seek to escape.

Problems arise when immigrants refuse to assimilate and show little interest in becoming American citizens. 100 years ago, immigrants arrived in America after dangerous journeys fully prepared to embrace their new country. In most cases, returning home was not an option. Most led very hard lives, took pride in American citizenship, and asked for nothing but the opportunity to work. Today, however, some immigrants travel between countries frequently, enjoying the benefits of America but showing no desire to become Americans. Some even display hostility toward America and our ideals, joining the chorus of voices demanding that the United States become a multicultural society that rejects our own history. It is this cultural conflict that soon must be addressed, and the president’s amnesty proposal simply turns a blind eye to the problem.
 
I think you are a sociopath. You only demonstrate that you have a limited capacity to argue subjects and then you resort to trying to limit conversation by way of spamming and trying to provoke people. You then try and horde information and attempt to get people banned. Normal people don't do this. Most normal folks get consumed by emotional interactions. You, as indicated in most of your posts here only want to win. Not by issue, not by content, just the desire to win.

I also, believe you are a sociopath because you try and recruit others. It may be some sort of pityplay. You telling the mods you've been here since the beginning etc. You used the pity play on Josh Lowry to try and prevent your expulsion.

If you were just arguing a point well, that would be one thing. But mostly you are just a sociopath trying to "win."

As you have admitted thus far, you want to prevent those who have differing opinions from having a voice.

This I believe, as reviewing your many posts and dozens of daily conflicts and complaints from many folks on this board indicates.

Constituent description:



Now if you had passion about a subject and wanted to win an argument because of that, that would be one thing. But time and time again on this board you have demonstrated nothing but contempt for everyone. In my mind you are a sociopath.

I agree with this assessment of this individual. This person is not here to debate issues in a respectful way or to learn anything. This person is here to create conflict and disharmony.
 
I think you are a sociopath.

Says the resident sociopath. I've noticed you have a knack for projection. "Arrogant," "Narcissistic," "Incest," "Child Molestation," all those negative qualities that you feel compelled to attribute incessantly (lol) to others, I'm quite certain are reflections of your own weaknesses.

You only demonstrate that you have a limited capacity to argue subjects

LoL, like I've said in the past, I'm done being nice to stupid. Look at your methods of argumentation, and then consider why you get the responses you do.

You then try and horde information and attempt to get people banned.

What actions did I take to try to get you banned, pray tell?

Normal people don't do this. Most normal folks get consumed by emotional interactions.

You are the judge of normal? That's f*n hilarious. Tell it to your minutemen trailer trash buddies over a beer while the five of you sit around hating mexicans all day, k?

You, as indicated in most of your posts here only want to win.

Wrong again, you're really on a roll. I am an advocate of liberty for all, you are an advocate of the police state. You are my enemy.

Fortunately we've met on the computer, were this real life you would have gotten the baby seal treatment long ago. You can take my word for it, or come down to Austin and find out for yourself. Consider this your invitation.


It may be some sort of pityplay. You telling the mods you've been here since the beginning etc. You used the pity play on Josh Lowry to try and prevent your expulsion.

Wrong again. I haven't contacted the mods. The mods (well a mod.), however, has contacted me when your buddy went crying to him about the "unnecessary aggravation" that I was causing her. Talk about a pity play, I can go into this further if you'd like.
If you were just arguing a point well, that would be one thing. But mostly you are just a sociopath trying to "win."

Wrong again, more projection, your idiocy just never quits.

As you have admitted thus far, you want to prevent those who have differing opinions from having a voice.

Wrong again, you're free to voice your opinion, however you seem determined to limit mine.

"This I believe, as reviewing your many posts and dozens of daily conflicts and complaints from many folks on this board indicates."

In my mind you are a sociopath.

In my mind, you are much much worse.
 
Last edited:
I agree with this assessment of this individual. This person is not here to debate issues in a respectful way or to learn anything. This person is here to create conflict and disharmony.

So you do care to pipe up?

Funny, I just mentioned you above:

Wrong again. I haven't contacted the mods. The mods (well a mod.), however, has contacted me when your buddy went crying to him about the "unnecessary aggravation" that I was causing her. Talk about a pity play, I can go into this further if you'd like.

I debated nicely with you, until you insisted on maintaining your insults/arrogance/ignorance, and you got what you gave (given your need to take a cheap shot in this thread, I'd expect more in the future if your present approach continues).

Then you go crying to a mod. I believe "Chosen" (the minuteman messiah) and his assessment above more accurately size you up. Your running to ronpaulhawaii (pity play) only supports this.

We can go into it, if you like?

I don't see where you would stand to benefit though, nor him.

Decision is yours...

(funny thing, I had already moved on)

K? Thx.
 
Last edited:
So you do care to pipe up?

I debated nicely with you, until you insisted on maintained your insults/ignorance, and you got what you gave.

Then you go crying to a mod. I believe the assessment more accurately sizes you up, your running to ronpaulhawaii only supports this.

We can go into it, if you like?

I don't see where you would stand to benefit though.

Decision is yours...

K? Thx.

Look creep, you came on a thread and made a false accusation because you failed to read my argument beforehand. THAT is how this whole thing started. Then you went on and on and on in another thread with your condscensions and insults, at which point I brought a mod into it, which is protocol, you dumbass.
You seem to have a habit of doing this to people you don't agree with because you can't rely on facts to back up your positions.

You have nothing of any substantial value to contribute to this forum, WHY are you here??

(how's that for a little taste of your own medicine)
 
Look creep, you came on a thread and made a false accusation because you failed to read my argument beforehand. THAT is how this whole thing started. Then you went on and on and on in another thread with your condscensions and insults, at which point I brought a mod into it, which is protocol, you dumbass.
You seem to have a habit of doing this to people you don't agree with because you can't rely on facts to back up your positions.

You have nothing of any substantial value to contribute to this forum, WHY are you here??

(how's that for a little taste of your own medicine)

LoL, thought I was on ignore?

You made such a public spectacle of it and all....

You have nothing of any substantial value to contribute to this forum, WHY are you here??

I'd venture to guess there are more than a few who would disagree with your assessment.


I might address the rest later. I'd particularly like to get into your "pity play"
 
Yes I do support amnesty. I am personally sorry that many people waded through thicker swamps of BS government protocols to get here, but as I do not believe in countries, borders, citizenship, or registration by other means, there is no alternative but to support amnesty. I, as Ron Paul, do not support any form of welfare state, but I do not see a reason to target "illegals" because of our own faulty policies.

You have the same view as most of our gov. officials & corp. america since they also support the north american union & the new world order which means the distruction of our constitution & sovorenty. No states rights since you don't want border's. You would be considered a globalist with these views.
 
Federal borders actually are a legit Federal issue, but things have turned around so topsy-turvy that the Feds drop the ball on their legit duties, for decades, while expanding their reach into unconstitutional directions. The loser in that equation: American citizens; the winner: foreign nationals. If you have reps in DC that support amnesty, and therefore further dissolution of our borders, you have a globalist/internationalist on your hands who could care less about the people he or she is elected to represent.
 
LoL, thought I was on ignore?

You made such a public spectacle of it and all....



I'd venture to guess there are more than a few who would disagree with your assessment.


I might address the rest later. I'd particularly like to get into your "pity play"

You are the public spectacle. All anyone need do is read your posts to see how condescending you are to people.

Defending onesself against an attacker does not a pity party make. Speaking of "projecting". :rolleyes: Hypocricy abounds.

And yes, I took you off of ignore because it was recommended that I flag your vitriol. And if it's a fight you want, it's a fight you'll get. Someone needs to put your silly ass in place.
 
You are the public spectacle. All anyone need do is read your posts to see how condescending you are to people.

Defending onesself against an attacker does not a pity party make. Speaking of "projecting". :rolleyes: Hypocricy abounds.

An attacker, eh? Like the buzzword. You ready to get into your pity play? I see you alluding to it already...

That said, pwnage ≠ attack. You'll be well served to learn the difference.

And yes, I took you off of ignore because it was recommended that I flag your vitriol. And if it's a fight you want, it's a fight you'll get. Someone needs to put your silly ass in place.


texas2_gilchrist_200.jpg


lol, keep reaching.

"A fight I want," eh? Funny, I seem to remember your comment against me as being what has set off this most recent (yet again tiresome) exchange (see your post above, your first and only in this thread, mind you). I recommend taking it to PMs, lest it get really ugly in here (i would prefer it didn't, the choice is yours to make though).
 
Last edited:
Yes I do support amnesty. I am personally sorry that many people waded through thicker swamps of BS government protocols to get here, but as I do not believe in countries, borders, citizenship, or registration by other means, there is no alternative but to support amnesty. I, as Ron Paul, do not support any form of welfare state, but I do not see a reason to target "illegals" because of our own faulty policies.

"A nation without borders is no nation at all" -- Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/
 
Did Ron Paul say that, or just the blogger at the site?

You know the answer, I find it telling that you would misattribute the quote to suit your purpose though.

No, Constituent, I'm pretty darned sure he said that. It was on his campaign page that related to illegal immigration.

I find it telling that you don't know that and would claim that I was lying.
 
No, Constituent, I'm pretty darned sure he said that. It was on his campaign page that related to illegal immigration. If I wasn't, I would not have said it.

Try again.

RonPaul.com is his "campaign page?"

No, it's not. Again, you know that.

And if you're "pretty darned sure," might "check your premise."
 
Back
Top