Ron Paul is against Congress delegating it's powers on the matter to the President and is against NAFTA and the WTO.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
He would not support any sort of special treatment to those companies, I do not know why you think otherwise. Not to mention as it stands now, many of those companies are SUBSIDIZED with taxpayer money.
Only that is not what I'm arguing. I am arguing that allowing them to operate in the U.S. and receive free roam while they help fund genocides, which as I'll explain later is not simply a 'human rights violation' is the complete anti-thesis to what our government was founded upon.
What about China? They are involved in human rights violations; should the government stop companies from trading with China?
I'm all for it though admittedly, unlike Ron Paul, I don't actually advocate it because it is
unrealistic. See what I'm getting at? Ron Paul is not a realist. He lives in the 17th century and thinks the rest of us are there with him.
Your second paragraph isn't based on anything. I don't recall him ever citing Jefferson as an economist who influenced him.
Is that some sort of ****ing joke?
Entangling Alliances
Entangling Alliances
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
As President Bush addressed the United Nations last week, I could not help thinking we have become incredibly mired in the "entangling alliances" another President George – George Washington – warned against. Sadly, many in Washington and the media seem to consider UN approval of our war plans far more important than a congressional debate on the matter.
America has an absolute sovereign right to defend itself. We do not need permission from the UN or anybody else to use military force. What is needed, however, is a congressional declaration of war. Our Constitution does not permit any President to initiate war simply because the UN gives him permission. When we seek permission, or even mere approval, from the United Nations, we give credibility to the terrible notion that American national security is a matter of international consensus. America alone should decide whether to send its sons and daughters to war.
I’m disappointed that the President has chosen to further entangle the American people with the United Nations by rejoining UNESCO. For decades UNESCO has promoted its anti-American "education" agenda with our tax dollars. President Reagan was right to withdraw America from the politicized and corrupt UNESCO, especially since American taxpayers funded a whopping 25% of its budget. Our new promised financial commitment to UNESCO is at least $60 million annually. Given our present economic problems and immediate national security concerns, we surely cannot afford to send even more taxpayer dollars to the UN – especially to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans.
Worst part about it is he even attributes it to the wrong person.
Maybe over abolishing the central bank, but Ron Paul is a million times better than Dodd or Frank. We are trillions of dollars in debt, continue to spend, are losing the ability to produce ANYTHING and yet Ron Paul's ideas are crazy? So is free trade the only problem you have?
No. His solutions are the problem. Not free trade, it's his SOLUTIONS to the problems which
are the problem.
That is what makes him nuts?
His position on abortion, gay rights, US military bases etc.
Yes, lets have companies stop trading with companies from countries with human rights violations, see how well our economy does then.
Ah yes, here is where we see your extremist logic and your complete inability to notice the difference between a human rights violation and a genocide. Genocides are human rights violations not all human rights violations are genocides.
Example,
China telling a few Christians to piss off every now and then? Human rights violation. I'm opposed to it but I do not think
that means stopping companies trading with them. Sanctions, declarations etc are all acceptable forms of descent in such case.
The government of Sudan hunting down Christians and killing them indiscriminately through proxies? Not the same thing at all. Not even a little bit. I mean sure both are human rights violations but they are not equal.
See where I'm getting at? It's this ridiculous version you Libertarians have of the world which scares most people who've actually been outside of the country on something more than a family vacation. The fact that you live in a world of black, claim you also see grays but forget about the fact that most people see in color is what makes your ideology so unappealing.
I'm not opposed to our government doing business with France even though they have banned Burqas. I'm not opposed to doing business with Egypt even though they subjugate religious minorities in some of their cities. I mean those are all human rights violations but I do not think they warrant stopping trade with those countries. I do however think a certain line needs to be drawn on how much we tolerate for the sake of good-clean capitalism and that is what you Libertarians along with your Messiah don't seem to understand. That in an ideal world you could probably stand opposed to
everything you disagree with. However in the real world being a purist is
NOT a good idea.