I Am Jim Rogers And I Support Ron Paul

Zero Hedge ^ | 8/27/2011 | Tyler Durden

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Cut and run said all we needed was 1 submarine. His idea of national defence is appease the enemy enough and they will leave us alone. It worked well for Nevile Chamberlain didn’t it<<<

I’m not sure who “cut and run” is, but one Trident submarine can destroy up to 192 cities (288 if we ignore the START treaty). We have 14 Trident subs.

>>>His idea of national defence is appease the enemy enough and they will leave us alone. It worked well for Nevile Chamberlain didn’t it.<<<

That is certainly not Ron Paul. He is no appeaser. Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, however, but he also had no military, to speak of. Arguing from a position of strength was not possible.

This is Paul’s position on Foreign Policy and National Defense:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/national-defense/

[mnehring]

It depends on who he is talking to. For example, he is against making English a national language and said those who want to are 'jealous and feel inferior'- 2007 Republican primary debate on Univision Dec 9, 2007

He is against deporting illegals saying it is 'impractical' - 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

Said the 'border fence isn't important'- 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Voted Yes on providing illegals work visas- Bill introduced by Smith, R-TX.; Bill HR 3736 ; vote number 1998-460 on Sep 24, 1998

..and is given an F by Numbers USA indicating the weakest position on border issues.

Want to keep going?

How about Ron Paul opposing and voting against eVerify? How about Paul opposing going after employers for hiring illegals? He is also opposed to using the military and State guard on the border to help secure it. How about all of these votes against curbing illegal immigration?

• 2006: H. Amendment 206 to H.R. 1815
• 2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200
• 2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588
• The Goode Amendments authorized the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain conditions, to assist in the performance of border control functions. It passed the House by a vote of 231-191.
• 2002: H. Amendment 479 to H.R. 4546
• 2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586
• 2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205
• 1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.
• Rep. Paul voted against authorizing the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control efforts. The Traficant Amendment passed by a vote of 242-173.
• Paul voted against H.R. 418 in 2005 to strengthen border control by requiring completion of the last 3.5 miles of the San Diego border fence. The legislation also broaden the terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportability of aliens. It passed by a vote of 261-161.
• Paul voted in 1997, 2001 ( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue under 8 USC Section 245-i amnesty for illegal aliens. This qualified as amnesty by “allowing an illegal alien to remain in the US legally” for a temporary period rather than permanent. This was seen as a loophole in the 1996 IRCA that barred illegal aliens from receiving visas for 10 years. By paying a “fee,” illegal aliens who applied for legal status could remain in the US while their application was reviewed and evade the usual investigation done in their home countries. The 245i program has since ended, but Ron Paul voted for its continuance in 1997, 2001 and 2002, and voted against ending it later.
• Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359)
• Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437). The legislation passed by a vote of 260-159. Rep. Paul changed his position when he decided to run for President and voted for the same measure, the Secure Fence Act, in 2006. The legislation authorized an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico. The Congressman changed his mind because he wanted “enforcement of the law.” He said it was not because he supported the construction of a border fence.
• After Paul changed his position he was interviewed by John Stossel of 20/20 on January 3, 2008 and said he finds a border fence “rather offensive.” He described his vote as symbolic, and he has never explained how he would secure the border.
• Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 1998). In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners.
• Paul received a “C” rating from the anti-illegal immigration group ALIPAC, Americans for Legal Immigration.

[mnehring]

Reagan had the best idea with his attack on Libya.

You mean that idea and action that Paul strongly opposed and trashed Reagan for using his old 'blowback' argument?

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/726953042.html?dids=726953042:726953042&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Oct+28%2C+1983&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Answer+Soviets+harshly.&pqatl=google

[mnehring]

“There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today....

..and thus his disconnect from reality and complete blind eye to the real world of those who are attacking us. Thanks for this final nail in the Ron Paul political coffin.

[mnehring]

Bingo. Palio Fraudie is a head-in-the-sand libertarian that Ayn Rand liked to refer to as ‘hippies of the right’.

[Darren McCarty]

I like Ron Paul and voted for him last time, but Quantum Fund? I wouldn't be bragging about a Soros operation.

No non governmental entity has done more damage to the world in the last fifty years than George Soros.

[John D]

I’m not sure who “cut and run” is

You know, the surrender monkey who blames every problem in the world on America.

, but one Trident submarine can destroy up to 192 cities (288 if we ignore the START treaty). We have 14 Trident subs.

But one submarine can not guard against both the east and west coast.

That is certainly not Ron Paul. He is no appeaser.

There is no bigger appeaser than the surrender monkey. His idea of national defense is to put our heads in the sand and hope our enemies do not attack. His hero is Nevile Chamberlain, he follows his foreign policy to a T.

[mnehring]

Looks like Soros is trying to remove Paul by getting him off his job as head of the Monetary Policy Committee by distracting him by helping keep his campaign alive.

[PhilipFreneau]

Your link did not work.

Here’s an article titled “When Ronald Reagan Endorsed Ron Paul”:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/when-ronald-reagan-endorsed-ron-paul/70913/

Check out the video at the bottom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgF-s1voM_Y&feature=player_embedded

[John D]

. Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, however, but he also had no military, to speak of. Arguing from a position of strength was not possible.

And that is exactly what cut and run is pushing for, a country with no military. That way we can never argue from a position of strength. Is that what we want?

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>I like Ron Paul and voted for him last time, but Quantum Fund? I wouldn’t be bragging about a Soros operation.<<<

Rogers left the (now-defunct) Quantum Fund in 1980.

>>>No non governmental entity has done more damage to the world in the last fifty years than George Soros.<<<

You got that right.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>You know, the surrender monkey who blames every problem in the world on America.<<<

Surrender to who?

>>>But one submarine can not guard against both the east and west coast.<<<

So? What is your point? We have 14 Trident subs, and a myriad of nuclear missles and bombers. We also have a large attack sub fleet. Again, what is your point?

>>>There is no bigger appeaser than the surrender monkey. His idea of national defense is to put our heads in the sand and hope our enemies do not attack. His hero is Nevile Chamberlain, he follows his foreign policy to a T.<<<

Maybe we should attack every country and show them who is boss. What’s a few more countries when we are already at war with half the Middle-East. Besides, it will create more jobs in the Defense industry. It might cost a zillion dollars, that we will have to borrow (no, we will have to print it, because no country in its right mind will loan to us), but who cares about living way, way beyond our means? Who cares that our economy is in shambles? Who cares that our money supply is being inflated? Let’s just show everyone who is boss.

Here is a very good interview of Ron Paul:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-18/ron-paul-limit-military-to-national-defense/

It covers more than military and national defense. There is much discussion of the economy, money supply, etc..

[John D]

Surrender to who?

To anybody who challenges us.

So? What is your point? We have 14 Trident subs, and a myriad of nuclear missiles and bombers. We also have a large attack sub fleet. Again, what is your point?

Cut and run wants to eliminate all of our defenses. He thinks, so he says that one submarine is all we need.

Maybe we should attack every country and show them who is boss.

It was not America who attacked the Trade Center, it was cut and run's friends the mooseslime extremists. Cut and run blamed us not them.

[chilepup]

No, he is not. This is a blatant lie and you know it. You say he is strong on the war on terror...you mean when he supported Afghanistan? Oh, or do you mean when he decided that it is ok to support giving terrorists due process? Oh, how about his support of closing Gitmo, no waterboarding and housing terrorists in American jails on American soil. Oh, let us not forget his brilliance with protecting America by blaming us for 9/11, and for saying he would not have supported killing UBL. Or, do you mean actually voting to secure the border...before voting AGAINST putting more agents on the border! LOL. You Paulies are all the same.

[chilepup]

This Paulie is going to say that RP meant “NATIONS” couldn’t attack us. This is what makes him so naive...this is a new war, one never fought before. We won’t necessarily be fighting nations, but bands of people who seek our destruction. But, I would submit that if China wanted to attack us, they could....and no submarines alone will stop them.

[PhilipFreneau]

Your first three links do not work. I’ll cherry pick the others since your post is rather lengthy (and most likely also cherry picked)?

>>>How about Ron Paul opposing and voting against eVerify? How about Paul opposing going after employers for hiring illegals? <<<

From your 4th link (which works):

In his 2011 book Liberty Defined, Rep. Paul says we shouldn’t “punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration. Blaming American employers and fining them for hiring an individual, directly or indirectly, possibly with a counterfeit identification, strikes me as a compulsory servitude not permitted under the Constitution. Determining who is legal or not is a police and court function, not a responsibility of private business..”

Paul’s constitutional argument appears sound, so I agree with him.

Here’s a video on his immigration positions (Ron Paul 101 - Immigration):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfJFcSF80dE&feature=related

>>>He is also opposed to using the military and State guard on the border to help secure it.<<<

So am I. We need more border guards. Our troops should be trained to fight wars. If there is a war on the border, send in the troops. But a so-called War on Drugs is not a war, so please don’t waste my time with that argument.

You give a long list of house votes by Paul, without applying context.

For example:

>>>Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437). The legislation passed by a vote of 260-159. Rep. Paul changed his position when he decided to run for President and voted for the same measure, the Secure Fence Act, in 2006.<<<

By context, I mean, Paul voted NO because he was against the fence. He is still against the fence. He voted YES on the final bill because of other provisions to stop amnesty. He has been consistently opposed to amnesty.

Provide some context on the others, and I will take a look at them.

>>>Paul received a “C” rating from the anti-illegal immigration group ALIPAC, Americans for Legal Immigration.<<<

Here are Paul’s positions on ALI’s website. Tell us, which do you disagree with, and why?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm#10-ALI

Personally, I agree with him in most every case.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>[Surrender to who?] To anybody who challenges us.<<<

Cute.

>>>Cut and run wants to eliminate all of our defenses. He thinks, so he says that one submarine is all we need.<<<

Do you have links?

>>>It was not America who attacked the Trade Center, it was cut and run’s friends the mooseslime extremists. Cut and run blamed us not them.<<<

If elected Paul will continue to “hunt down the 9/11 terrorist planners (who are still at large)”.

We have not been benign in the Middle East. We have helped prop up dictators, and supported both sides of the Iran-Iraq war

Personally I despise the muslim religion. It teaches hate and agression, and there will never be a peaceful cooexistence between them and us. Just so you know where I stand.

[John D]

Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437). The legislation passed by a vote of 260-159. Rep. Paul changed his position when he decided to run for President and voted for the same measure, the Secure Fence Act, in 2006.<<<

So like another liberal, he voted no before he voted yes, when he knew his vote would not matter. Sounds like another liberal we all remember.

[Tex-Con-Man]

Like the last time, I guess: the RINO hack the GOP establishment chooses as it nominee.

As will I.

Obama must be stopped. But Paul is not the answer.