All right. I've heard the "anti-Semitic" remarks before; I still don't buy it. We'll have to agree to disagree.
He's also rabidly anti-free market, and wants the U.S. to never become engaged in anything outside our borders. We saw several times in the past century exactly where that kind of thinking leads us.
If you want to criticize his positions, fine, but don't go on a smear campaign. He's "anti-free trade," not "anti-free market." The United States was always fairly heavy on the tariffs until after WWII. In fact, prior to income tax, they were the federal government's primary source of revenue.
Many people will claim that "anti-free trade" is anti-property rights. Not true. Number one, why do you think borders exist to begin with? Particularly in this age of high technology and fast transportation, the day national governments no longer have a right to regulate movement between them--goods or people--is the day nations cease to exist. Number two, that argument blindly assumes that societies do not exist, only individuals. Historically in Western Civilization, a man's first responsibility was his devotion to God, then his obligations to his household, then to his lord, and finally to his king. But this is not an exclusively Western concept; human beings have always been social animals.
But back to the trade issue. Free traders argue that a larger economy (i.e., more people) allows for further specialization of labor and therefore more efficient production and a better lifestyle for all involved. There are several problems with this argument. Number one, an economy of three hundred million people would probably allow for all the specialization you could ever want. Number two, this theory only works if all parties have access to each others' products. When we outsource manufacturing jobs to third-world countries, what ends up happening is that Americans are buying the products made by the third-world, but the third-world cannot buy anything the United States makes. The people who benefit the most from outsourcing are not the third-world inhabitants, but already wealthy C.E.O.s.
Finally, it should be noted that our economy was doing just fine before NAFTA, the GTAA, and the WTO.
Lastly as someone who grew up in Texas, and is now seeing my new home of Arkansas being overrun by illegals, I can agree that we have to do something about this issue. I am just unwilling to sell my soul to an anti-Semite to do it.
Again, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the "anti-Semite" bit. Still, it is getting rather old; the fact that I see the charge repeated time and again by many of the same people, along with the same fallible arguments used to substantiate it, is what makes me yawn or even groan when I hear someone make charges of "anti-Semitism." Abuse of the word betrays the concept. When it becomes as cheap as some neocons have made it, people might eventually be so indifferent as to shrug off charges of ACTUAL anti-Semitism.
I believe a little more accuracy is called for...Pat has never said he was anti-Jewish...He has stated at times that the people that seem to be in control of things are Jewish...IF that's not true, refute it...That's not an anti-Jewish statement...
He's also rabidly anti-free market, and wants the U.S. to never become engaged in anything outside our borders.
Now that's not true at all...Time and again, Pat says he believes in FAIR trade...not free trade...He and I are tired of seeing the Communist Chinese control the economics of the U.S...Quit making stuff up...