Edited

I am not actually against Ron Paul as he is the only candidate that is not owned by the corporations. I will vote for him unless someone better comes along,not hillary or obama or rudi or mccain or romney or huckabee.

Ron Paul is a very easy target for "pot shots" with his extreme views.

"DQ said-Am I to take it that you favor rounding up 20 million people and deporting them. Not hardly practical. But the flow has to be stopped sometime if we are to survive and maintain a decent standard of living."

When should the flow be stopped? After another 20 million? Are you for the NOrth American Union of Mexico,canada and the US?

It is illegal for them to work here. If their employment was ended they would leave the same way they came.They would self deport. I favor giving each one $1000.00 and a free ticket back to speed things up. Mexico is a beautiful country. The cost of providing them with benefits will be in the trillions of dollars.


You DON QUIXOTE failed to address the end result of amnesty for 20 million, the right to bring in spouses immediately, the bringing in of their relatives, the increase in illegals coming across the border. The drug gangs. The Mexicanization of the US. The eventual north american union.


Ron Paul even waffles on the immigration issue. "The way to deal with the 15 million illegals is to get rid of the entitlements: public schools, and our socialized medicine." Since that isnt going to happen does that mean he is for amnesty? Is he for deporting them? If not then he is for amnesty. Amnesty for 20 million, plus chain migration of an additional xx millions. Amnesty will increase the number of illegals crossing the border maybe to 2 to 5 million a year.




DQ says:
"Roe versus Wade? Tough call, especially from a constitutional standpoint. If life does not begin at conception, what exactly is a growing human lifeform? "

The Republican Neocon Royalist philosophy is that life begins at conception and ends at birth. After birth you are a slave. And slaves have no rights over their bodies,so they can be forced to breed.

Some libertarians hold the view of non aggression (you shouldnt hurt that little fetus) but to force a women to breed is about as aggressive a thing that one can do and that is patently obvious.


DQs position
"Hard call to make, but really hard to support federal funding of taking away that life."
Why? If a person had a tumor you would support medical care to have it removed. As long as it is legal a woman has a right to it. Or are you for abortion for just those who can afford it?




Libertarian Party on Abortion

Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state

Pro-choice positions

Though not accepted by all libertarians, Objectivist philosophy has had considerable influence on libertarian thought. One website run by the Objectivist-influenced Capitalism Magazine is an example of the pro-choice position:

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.[2]


Tweet