Comments on: Paul counters Dondero

By: the oak

the oak — Thu, 24 May 2007 21:15:15 +0000

I am also a former Ron Paul employee and worked in the same office as Eric. Eric was fired because he didn’t show up for work. When he did show up he slept on a nasty couch which we burned after he left.

He has a lot of bad habits and numero uno is laziness.

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Wed, 23 May 2007 14:30:00 +0000

Gloria,

I understand why Ron Paul is taking his position on illegal immigration, particularly in regards to the social services angle. But I’m saying he’s wrong for doing so. Supporting one bad policy (restricted immigration) to alleviate the consequences of other bad policies (entitlement spending) doesn’t make his position any more palatable, it just means he’s using illegal immigration to mask a bigger problem. I’m against providing free social services to illegal immigrants, same as I’m against providing free services to anyone in the country…but the solution to that problem is not to restrict immigration so that entitlements can continue.

That said, I was still planning on voting for Paul for president anyway…just because I disagree with him on some issues doesn’t mean I disqualify him on all issues. And just because I support him doesn’t mean I should keep quiet when I think he’s wrong.

By: million

million — Wed, 23 May 2007 14:20:33 +0000

doesn’t Congress have to ratify any trade agreements he signs? Paul’s off-base views will be held in check by the “balance of power” if that’s the case. the guy gets my vote regardless, so many positives.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 23 May 2007 06:27:16 +0000

What’s a sane, reasonable person supposed to do in a Paul-Dondero race; easy vote for the Democrat.

By: chad

chad — Wed, 23 May 2007 05:24:47 +0000

DONDERO!! This is too funny.

I’ve seen him all over internet blogs for years. He is such a weirdo.

I was thinking Eric Dondero was a loser before I even heard of Ron Paul, so that says something about him.

Funny stuff.

By: James

James — Wed, 23 May 2007 02:24:12 +0000

Ahem, the Constitution enumerates foreign policy and trade actions allowed to be performed by the federal government, so I guess your only for part of the Constitution.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 23 May 2007 01:39:48 +0000

“Iâ€™m sick of seeing people say, â€œI like Ron Paul on 90% of issues, butâ€¦â€ Hello? Which of the other candidates are doing better overall by your standards?”

Well, I’m happy to say I’m one of those people. When it comes to domestic policy and the constitution, Paul is spot on and is ideal. However, I don’t agree with anything he says on foreign policy or free trade.

By: Gloria

Gloria — Tue, 22 May 2007 23:35:28 +0000

I’m a libertarian and I don’t find Paul’s position on immigration vexing at all. First of all, he lives in Texas, which has a huge problem with illegal immigration and pays a lot for that problem.

The libertarian view would be completely open immigration, with no welfare to immigrants who would come, right? But as it is, that simply cannot happen in today’s society. Hospitals are REQUIRED by Supreme Court rulings to take any sick patients, which means many Mexican mothers come along and have their kids in Texas hospitals (on the taxpayer or hospital) and their kids are magically American. The kids will all go to public school, the school will have to provide bilingual education so that the kids can learn, etc. All at the taxpayers’ expense– and the illegal parents aren’t paying taxes! They’re even eligible for Social Security and can receive Social Security checks in Mexico if they decide to go back. Social Security has thought about opening a Mexico City office for this purpose, at American taxpayers’ expense. In Texas, illegal immigrants can even go to college for the in-state rate even though their parents have never paid taxes in their life. That’s how it is today, and that’s the opposite of a libertarian viewpoint.

For totally open borders to occur, they would have to be established with all countries, and all other countries in turn would have to have them, and it’s just not going to happen.

I’m sick of seeing people say, “I like Ron Paul on 90% of issues, but…” Hello? Which of the other candidates are doing better overall by your standards? None of them are anywhere close. Libertarians should be putting their all behind Ron Paul in this.

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Tue, 22 May 2007 20:29:41 +0000

I think Dondero basically shot himself in the foot by describing Guiliani as the “real libertarian” in the Republican primary. A pro-Iraq, anti-gun candidate who supports the expansion of executive power (as Guiliani does) doesn’t have a lot in the way of libertarian credentials. And while I tend to believe in the need for nation-building in Afghanistan as it serves a national interest, Dondero’s pushing an overly aggressive interventionist foreign policy in regards to Iraq, so I think you have to question his credibility as a libertarian on foreign policy. He’s far too hawkish in my opinion, and I think libertarians (as well as everyone else) in his district would be far better served by retaining Ron Paul.

Even if I find Paul’s position on immigration somewhat vexing :)