ALL OF THOSE WHO AGREE TO THIS STUPID AD SHOULD LEARN A LITTLE ABOUT YOUR OWN HISTORY. REMEMBER US HISTORY? APPARENTLY NOT.

FOR THOSE THAT NEED A LITTLE BIT OF AN EDUCATION, LET ME SET YOU STRAIGHT ON THIS PART OF THE CLIP:

“…FOR GENERATIONS, LADY LIBERTY WELCOMED IMMIGRANTS, WHO CAME HERE LEGALLY, FOLLOWED THE RULES…”

LADY LIBERTY / ELLIS ISLAND WAS A FREE FOR ALL!!!

YOU PACKED YOUR THINGS AND GOT ON A SHIP TO GO TO AMERICA. NO VISA, NO PASSPORT, NO IMMIGRANT APPLICATION, NO JOB OFFER, YOU JUST GOT ON A SHIP. ONCE YOU ARRIVED, YOU STOOD IN LINE, GAVE YOUR NAME TO SOMEONE, GOT A BASIC DOCTOR CHECK-UP AND THEN GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT!! FROM THERE, YOU COULD BOARD A TRAIN TO WHEREVER YOU WANTED IN THE COUNTRY. PITTSBURGH, CHICAGO, BOSTON, YOU NAME IT. YOU WERE EVEN GIVEN FOOD!! WOW, THAT IS HARDCORE!

OF COURSE, NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WERE A BURDEN TO THE ECONOMY OR TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, NOT AT ALL. NONE OF THEM TOOK YOUR JOBS. PLUS THEY ALL SPOKE PERFECT ENGLISH, NOTHING BUT BONUSES FOR THE COUNTRY CAME IN!

BUT TODAY IT IS, LETS SEE, AN INVASION, THEY ALL ABUSE THE SYSTEM, THEY DONT PAY TAXES, THEY ARE CRIMINALS, THEY THIS THEY THAT. YEA, WEIRD HOW THAT WORKS HUH?

I BET GOD WOULD BE PROUD OF THESE HYPOCRITS, SO CALLED CHRISTIANS.

Your reasoning proves fallacious when you state:

“I personally find abortion objectionable, but support leaving the question up to the individuals affected, so long as we’re not talking about a viable fetus able to survive outside of the womb.”

The lives of most children outside of the protective confines of their parents home can only be described as “unviable.” Should parents have the right to perform “retroactive” birth control and terminate their three or four year old child because they can’t produce? You express a sentiment that can only be generously described as “penny wise” and “pound foolish”, and no doubt the reasoning of a “Libertarian” mindset that while seeking freedom clings to a self-imposed delusion of scarcity. Very Spartan, your moral seems based on the famous “desert island” nightmare where anything requiring the slightest attention only drains our limited resources. Should the “unviable” children be eliminated? How about “unviable” races? Some claim the entire African continent to be unviable? Do the unfit have a place in creation?

The War in Iraq, awful and wasteful as it may be, is not the only important issue in this campaign. Border security IS an important matter. Railing against our Bush-Clinton induced broken borders–with their endgoal of an Amero state–does not make Ron Paul look “racist”.

My only complaint on ads emphasizing his position regarding illegal immigration is that it is redundant by comparison to the positions of the other GOP candidates, while Paul ads need to be hammering other issues as well–like our decaying civil liberties.

My view is that illegal immigration is, like drugs, another government-created (or at least government-exascerbated) “crisis,” the proposed solution for which is, frankly, fascism. The myriad ways in which the US is creating the problem, from disastrous “free-trade agreements” to propping up narco-dictatorships in Latin America are well documented. Equally unsavory is the solution. I’m uncomfortable with the prospect of lining up for my National ID card. This makes me, according to Commissar Chertoff, either a “terrorist” an “illegal immigrant,” though I am neither.

Actually, I agree with you on one point, that we ought to end illegal immigration (my solution is simple: let’s legalize it). What we are experiencing, however, is hardly an invasion. The illegal immigrants I have known almost all return to their home countries after two-to-five year periods in the US. Especially given that the US was responsible for ACTUAL invasions and persistent meddling in the internal affairs of Latin American countries in recent memory (virtually all of Central America was turned into a war zone with Baghdad levels of violence that only ended, in some countries, in the early 1990s), the use of the term invasion seems particularly hypocritical as well.

support for paul is support for the rights and liberties of all americans. there is no other candidate on either side comparable to such a platform, and that goes far beyond net rhetoric.

I genuinely believe Paul is the real deal. He seems to me a kind-hearted, well-informed, responsible, sensible person — perhaps a bit overwhelmed by the attention the good ideas he promulgates are finally getting — but not too bowled over by it.

I’m not sure what your opposition is based on Aggro-crag. Enlighten me and perhaps I’ll change my tune. If he truly doesn’t deserve it, I won’t vote for him.

As far as ‘anti-war’ goes, only Kucinich can match him on both ‘walking the walk’ and ‘talking the talk’. As far as the racism goes, that kept me away from Paul for months while I investigated the guy. I finally decided that while the ‘ghostwriter’ escapade seemed hokey to me, not only was it twenty years ago, but he has clearly, publicly, consistently, and rightfully disavowed himself from such attitudes.

His current platform is the least racist of any of the candidates [in my opinion] - certainly amongst the Republicans.

Paul is the only one that doesn’t equate being born Arab with being less-than-human-future-collateral-damage. He’s the only candidate who says he’s tired of the hypocritical “Christian” candidates arguing theology at the expense of issues, and - other than that ad that offended me - the only one that talks about addressing *illegal* immigration without equating being born south of the border with being less human than himself.

I can’t support Antiwar.com if they are going to start advocating the invasion of the US by illegals.