11

Rand Paul position on immigration puts him at odds with most Gulchers

Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 5 months ago to News
100 comments | Share | Flag

Let the debate begin! Pardon me if I don't get too involved in this one. I have a major deadline coming up on Friday. Meeting that deadline is definitely in my best interest.

All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Out of what they leave....I agree. Privately and out of sight out of mind before it was shut down, the technology stolen, and fined out of existence- because some might be offended (moochers) and some others are just garden variety looters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And those positions are? The way it looks it would take a stick of dynamite to pry that information loose.

    As for your two favorites. Both Reublican both support the Rino Majority by being Republican both supporters therefore of left wing socialist fascism. The rest is just excuses.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think anyone was thinking of the gov't paying for it. It would have to be done privately.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    More good points.

    The more I consider the Catholic religion, the more I believe it to be a government as well, since they have their own city that is basically governed from within. Also until recently, the same rules applied inside the religion in other countries too. But at least the current Christian Religions are not advocates of death, although some of their beliefs may not be in the individuals best interest. But that is just my opinion.

    There is one passage in Islam's bible (Koran), governing rules or whatever term we use for it, that concerns me the most. That is the passage that suggest that believers in Islam blend with society until they are in a position of power and at that point they are to kill all infidels. This is not a quote of the passage as I do not have that at my fingertips but it was taught to me during a class put on by an Egyptian Christian that translated the Koran. Was he telling the truth? I could never say for sure because I cannot translate an original Koran but believe what he shared has to be considered. But in no way do I consider myself an expert on this subject. As I have stated in another comment, I think we need to take a page from the progressives book and start calling it a government instead of a religion. If you say it enough it will be come truth and then it can be dealt with. (said somewhat tongue in cheek)

    But truthfully I do not know what to believe on the subject and in reality, I simply want to know the truth about Islam and the Koran. I want to know if I can turn my back on a believer of Islam and currently I cannot do that. This is why these discussions are so good.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is always and option besides keeping them in the always open to attack refugee camps. What countries are open to accepting if some cost were covered such as transportation and so forth OR is that fryingi pan into the fire?

    I'm assuming there would be no problem with the three non muslim groups or at least two of them not sure about Christians but contacting the Bahai Church would take care of that question here in the USA.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Also good points!

    IMHO you are correct, well at least our leaders are not following the Constitution. It basically is not even considered by most. Many of us people still consider it the law of the land.

    Don't get me started on the Patriot Act. I was one of the few that questioned how, in America was that acceptable the day GW signed it into law. We learned quickly how bad it is.

    I wish for a FNA.

    For me, the more thought I put into Islam the more I believe it to be a government, not a religion. Or to take a tactic from the left, if you say it enough it becomes the truth. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps it would be less costly to keep them in their own homeland?
    It is important to realize that we need to protect what we have and after all these years of endless wars of attrition in the Middle East it should be clear to anyone who has been there that this "crisis" and our answer to it isn't viable for this country.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What I am saying is: It is because of the nature of their particular "religious" views that now there is a reason to re-think the thoughts behind the first amendment.
    If "religious freedom" has morphed into: "The freedom to use your religious beliefs to end the lives of others" we are in trouble in this nation.
    Self-protection is vital when considering the entry of these particular refugees.
    As my husband says: "President Obama, please house them in the White House if you think that this is a good idea."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To what purpose? Paid for how? We can't pay the bills we have today and that shows zero signs of being solved by future technology.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I hadn't done the computation for a while and didn't think about the 19 trillion debt instead of the pre Obama debt but I did add in water, timber, mineral and grazing rights and I had subtracted that listed as reservations, military spaces and a percentage for roads and so forth.

    Well it's still all the collateral they have. As a thought how much is ANWAR worth with it's oil deposits? The nation really is bankrupt. There is no full faith and credit which didn't mean anything anyway. Most of it will be scrub land. and I doubt Washington DC is worth that much.

    I make it $29,921 and twenty six cents. That's a lot of inflation However if the land was sold privately it would bring in some property tax. Not much to say for 240 years of investing.

    Last I did the figures it was $10,000 an acre with full property rights - even sovereignty rights wouldn't work.

    No gold, no land, no collateral, no faith, no credit. pretty dismal picture with nothing but inflation, devaluation and debt repudiation to count on. That's not counting all the squandered tax money we involuntarily loaned the government.

    Might be a way to start up a new country though. CHina would get Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska.perhaps.

    Big problem with western lands is California. LA for example. Who could afford the water bill?.

    So how do you engineer land value to average $30,000 an acre? Or would the debt holder except 33 cents on the dollar which brings it down to $10,000 an acre?

    Fictional analysis. But I'm suddenly reminded of France when they did the old Francs new francs devaluation. One New Franc was worth ten old Francs in printed and minted money. The prices remained the same but the salaries were paid in new francs....

    How about the new SW Texas oil reserves or the offshore stuff?

    Hate to say it but the only way the US could afford a house is mandatory loans to unqualified borrowers.I guess we would need Frank and Dodd back to explain how they rigged that one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy they terraform it in a few hundred years, but Robinson admits it would take thousands of years. Who knows what's possible with future technologies though. And when we can terraform Mars, we'll probably have the technology to colonize the oceans, antarctica, and low earth orbit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The federal government owns about 635 million acres of land, more than half of which is in Alaska, Arizona and Nevada. To pay off the national debt, this land would have to fetch on average about $29,000 per acre.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Timelord 9 years, 5 months ago
    jbrenner wrote: "Meeting that deadline is definitely in my best interest." Hmmph! Now you're just being selfish! What about the needs of the rest of us?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Mars should probably be settled, eventually. Its major problems are (1) next to no atmosphere (about 0.5% of Earth sea level pressure, and that mostly CO2 and junk) and (2) extreme cold (a warm noon at the Equator is about -60 C). Terraforming is being studied but would take at least decades and more likely centuries.

    I don't see it as worthwhile for anybody now living, but I might donate to an effort to start the terraforming process.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Haven't been obeying the rules as a nation anyway so that's not impediment. What integrity? So how can all of that be used against us? In the end the folks in DC will just sell us out anyway. Business as usual.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago
    Sooooooo what was his position on immigration? Managed to talk about everything else...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    About 30% roughly. That does not count State, and local government land. If sold it would pay off the national debt and it now represents the only backing we have for our currency. Arizona has he least privately owned land and Rhode Island as a percentage. the most with the least federally owned land. the USA has no idea how much they directly own and control however in their view they own all of it. The last attempt to balance those books is still ongoing with up to three agencies listing the same properties.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Good question how do you accept people who refuse to live according to the morals, values, principals of the country."

    "How do you exclude them when we ourselves refused to live up to the morals, values, and principals of our country."

    "But the Constitu....."

    "Was replaced by an overwhelming popular vote with the Patriot Act."

    "But our founders?"

    "We are not our founders. We are the one's who shat on their legacy. And voted King George back into office."

    "George Bush?"

    "Amongst others. George Soros and George Lakoff fo rtwo others."

    "But surely you don't mean...."

    "Don't I? Same Sex Marriage ring a bell. Fine where it was voted in locally but then it became law of the land. How many states voted in favor of that amendment?"

    And since it was made natinal law by one Judge how many States demanded a vote to make any changes? Such as making it an amendment?"

    "None..."

    "That's right."

    "So whee are you going?"

    "Moving to FNA Free North America."

    "Got any room?"

    "Hop in."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheRealBill 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, France was our first ally, but they did not formally and publicly recognize us as a sovereign nation first. They supported us to spite the British and drain the British war machine.

    I agree that the FF would oppose the extremists in Islam today. However, I see nothing tenable to suggest they would prevent any and all Muslims from coming in to do so. Indeed looking at how they didn't exclude the British after the war, a proven existential threat to the newborn nation, I'd say the evidence weighs against such a notion.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo