Ron Paul Commercial Shown In Iowa

[let_go_let_God]

May I say one thing, I live in Iowa and haven't seen this ad until now on PM.

God bless-
LGLG

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1325673302' post='2362705']
on US soil? say what? I mean, AFAIK, Chinatown isn't operated by the Chinese Gov't' and is indeed within the US's jurisdiction, lol. What exactly are you referring to?
[/quote]

I'll try to find the article I read if I can. I don't remember how I originally saw it - maybe from a link here...

Anyway, the story was that the US agreed to let China have their own city in Idaho - I *think* south of Boise. This city will be China run, for Chinese citizens, and will no longer be US territory. In the article it added that China already has a number of these "cities" on US soil.

[fides' Jack]

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/china-wants-to-construct-a-50-square-mile-self-sustaining-city-south-of-boise-idaho

I don't know how accurate this is - the site is obviously not going to have the most accurate information.

And I misspoke; it says there are a number of these places already, but not necessarily Chinese.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1325701395' post='2362850']
Anyway, the story was that the US agreed to let China have their own city in Idaho - I *think* south of Boise. This city will be China run, for Chinese citizens, and will no longer be US territory. In the article it added that China already has a number of these "cities" on US soil.
[/quote]
Many sources I could find on this seem to do little more than scare mongering.
Take, for instance, this:
[url="http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/china-wants-to-construct-a-50-square-mile-self-sustaining-city-south-of-boise-idaho"]http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/china-wants-to-construct-a-50-square-mile-self-sustaining-city-south-of-boise-idaho[/url]
"[T][color=#000000][font=tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left]hey have decided to [...] buy up pieces of the United States and set up "special economic zones" inside our country from which they can continue to extend their economic domination. One of these "special economic zones" would be just south of Boise, Idaho and the Idaho government is eager to give it to them. China National Machinery Industry Corporation (Sinomach for short) plans to construct a "technology zone" south of Boise Airport which would ultimately be up to 50 square miles in size. The Chinese Communist Party is the majority owner of Sinomach, so the 10,000 to 30,000 acre "self-sustaining city" that is being planned would essentially belong to the Chinese government.[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left]. . . [/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left][url="http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/31/1472023/chinese-company-eyes-boise.html"]According to the Idaho Statesman[/url], the idea would be to build a self-contained city with all services included. It would be modeled after the "special economic zones" that currently exist in China.[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left]. . . [/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left]So exactly who is "Sinomach"?[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left]The following description of the company comes directly [url="http://www.sinomach.com.cn/templates/T_common_en/index.aspx?nodeid=147"]from the website of Sinomach[/url]....[/left][/size][/font][/color][indent]
[i]With approval of the State Council, China National Machinery Industry Corporation (SINOMACH) was established in January 1997. SINO-MACH is a large scale, state-owned enterprise group under the supervision of the State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission.[/i][/indent]
[color=#000000][font=tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left]As you can see, Sinomach is basically an arm of the Chinese government."[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left](That last bit was included just to show how painfully ignorant the author must be about communism to be shocked and awed at the fact that commercial entities operate under government influence. )[/left][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=tahoma, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left]However, the Stateman article that the previous link cites - which, for what it's worth, is the only [i]actual [/i]news article I could find on the situation - paints a slightly different picture.[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[url="http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/31/1472023/chinese-company-eyes-boise.html"]http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/31/1472023/chinese-company-eyes-boise.html[/url]

"A Chinese national company is interested in developing a 10,000- to 30,000-acre technology zone for industry, retail centers and homes south of the Boise Airport. Officials of the China National Machinery Industry Corp. have broached the idea. . .to city and state leaders.They are also interested in helping build and finance a fertilizer plant near American Falls, an idea company officials returned to Idaho this month to pursue.This ambitious, long-term proposal would start with a manufacturing and warehouse zone tied to the airport.
. . .
Sinomach is not looking only at Idaho. The company sent delegations to Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania this year to talk about setting up research and development bases and industrial parks. It has an interest in electric transmission projects and alternative energy as well. The technology zone proposal follows a model of science, technology and industrial parks in China — often fully contained cities with all services included. . .Sinomach officials met with Boise city and airport officials — including Mayor Dave Bieter — to discuss developing a first phase for the technology zone that would set up a base of operations for Chinese companies doing business in the United States. [b]City officials were cautious[/b], since the idea is at an early stage.“We understand they are at a preliminary stage. We are waiting to hear back from them with a proposal for where they want to go from here,” said Cece Gassner, assistant to the mayor for economic development.
. . .
“Idaho’s the last state that should say we don’t want to do business with Asia,” said Lt. Gov. Brad Little. “Asia’s where the money is.”. . . But that doesn’t mean the state won’t stick up for its own interests. “We’re sure not going to favor a Chinese company over an Idaho company,” Little said."

For one thing, it never said that they were founding a city. I am not intimately familiar with the city boundaries of Boise, but it said that this is planned to go just south of the Boise Airport.
Now, according to this map of (and from) the City of Boise, the airport appears to be well within the city limits:
[url="http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/IT/GISAndMapping/PDF/BoiseVicinityMap.pdf"]http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/IT/GISAndMapping/PDF/BoiseVicinityMap.pdf[/url]
So depending upon just how far south of the airport the development is (and from what I have read, it seems that they would prefer it not be far, since the point is airport accessibility), it might even still be within the City of Boise.
All that aside, nowhere in the "real" article does it mention that this development would operate outside of federal/state/county(/city, if applicable) jurisdiction, nor does it even claim that it would be a bona fide city. The article says that the proposal "follows a model of science, technology and industrial parks in China — often fully contained cities with all services included". [i]O[/i][i]ften [/i]fully contained cities. Now, I have a feeling that the rules of the ballgame would be a little different on foreign soil, especially democratic/capitalist soil, where the government isn't [i]as [/i]authoritarian and can dictate where there will and won't be new cities. On top of that, are we sure that they are using the word "city" in its most literal form? I understand that Shenzhen came about in a way similar to this, but the term city can be applied in a figurative sense. For instance, I've often heard the term "city at sea" applied to aircraft carriers. I'm quite certain that there are no elections for city council or town charters on aircraft carriers. It could even be as simple as a misinterpretation of the word (especially considering that that's the only time the word "city" is used in the article).

But, even if the Chinese government did want to build this "city", operating entirely outside of US rule, it's hardly the case that the "US agreed" to it. "City officials were cautious";“We’re sure not going to favor a Chinese company over an Idaho company". And there was no mention of the US government even getting involved.

I'd be very surprised if the development gets built, especially to the extent that the Chinese are wanting (or wanted as of December 2010, when that article was published). As for it being an independent Chinese enclave on American soil? I wouldn't hold my breath.



As for the video, I like it a lot.

Ps. Sorry if my writing was clunky at points. I have a nasty cold and between that and the cough medicine, I'm not all there.

[Aloysius]

yeah, there is no basis in US law for exempting a city from the rule of US Law. a city government or even a state government would not have the authority to do that, I doubt the US government would really have the authority to do that short of a constitutional amendment, so don't hold your breath. so even if it's Chinese run and all that, it is still subject to US law and everyone working there would have the protection of the Constitution and such.

LGLG, this ad was made by a superpac affiliated with Paul, not Paul's campaign itself. I think the superpac prolly has less resources than the Paul campaign, so it probably wouldn't have had as much exposure. I think this particular commercial needs to get a lot of exposure.

[ParadiseFound]

Where was the 'I'm Ron Paul and I approve this message' bit? I thought all the official ones had those?

[4588686]

[quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1325716925' post='2362973']
Where was the 'I'm Ron Paul and I approve this message' bit? I thought all the official ones had those?
[/quote]

This was a super PAC.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Hasan

[StMichael]

If he ran 3rd party it would all but ensure that Obama gets a 2nd term.

Thanks to Perot (19% of the vote) we got Clinton (41%) who defeated Bush (39%) and became the first President to win with way less than 1/2 the country electing him.

And Ron Paul, there is so much to disagree with. He is a truther, a racist and an anti-semite.

As for foreign policy, the one thing outlined in the Constitution that the federal government must do is not healthcare, not education, not lightbulbs but to defend this nation and its interests.

Everything you need to know about Ron Paul can be seen here, in his own words:

http://ronpaulnewsletters.blogspot.com/

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1325494058' post='2361579']
this ad is AMAZING. if he doesn't get the nomination, he should run third party and SATURATE the airwaves with this ad.

do unto other nations as you would have them do unto yours.
[/quote]

[ardillacid]

Bold talk for a one-eyed fat man

[Aloysius]

the newsletters were not written by him (and he's apologized for them anyway since he knows he shouldn't have put those people in charge of them like that), and if his 30 year record and various endorsements from the NAACP in his county can't convince you, then nothing can. he's certainly not a truther, nor an anti-semite, but you're viewing everything through the partisan bubble, which teaches people to capitalize on anything that tears down an opponent as much as they can. it's really quite sad in American politics how that works. ah well, such is life.

Obama has done very little different from Bush. He followed the trajectory set by Bush for increasing spending and bailouts, he increased powers over civil liberties the same way Bush would have, he followed Bush's timeline to a letter in Iraq while he still tried to negotiate to keep some troops up until the last minute. his healthcare law is still in contention so it hasn't really even done anything yet it seems, but all it would even do is strengthen the private health insurance industry by ensuring it would have a whole bunch of new customers. and Romney, et al., will do very little different from Bush/Obama. I'm more concerned about another president from the Bush/Obama camp than anything else. The only other person who might've done things slightly different from Bush/Obama was Bachman (not that I supported her, but I found her at least sincere in her rhetoric), and she's out anyway.

I actually wonder if a Ron Paul 3rd party run couldn't steal an equal amount away from Obama on the anti-war platform as it stole from the GOP. it'd be interesting to see happen. But I refuse to ever again play the game of the two-party system about how not voting for some vomit inducing sleazeball politician talking out of both sides of his mouth is going to bring about certain doom because the other vomit inducing sleazeball politician talking out of both sides of his mouth is worse for some reason. Romney vs. Obama is no contest to me, because to be quite honest, I don't care which of them wins. The only one who might get me to swallow my vomit long enough to vote for him over Obama (other than Ron Paul who I'd vote for happily) might be Santorum, though it really makes me sick to my stomach to see us all goading Iran into a war.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Aloysius

[dominicansoul]

[img]http://thisisphotobomb.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/photobomb-that-guy-well-played.jpg[/img]

[Aloysius]

haha I've seen that pic somewhere. Whoever that man is, I'd like to shake his hand.

[StMichael]

Paul wrote the newsletters. He is on record multiple times over the years taking credit for them. His apologies are only for political expediency.

Won't bother on the Obama debate, far too lengthy to bother with, but to say that when he ran he screamed how personal income had decreased by 3% under Bush over his 8 years. Personal income under Obama has fallen by 6% in the last 3 years. That is without accounting for inflation.

Our GDP to Debt is now 100.3%. Obama has added over $5 trillion to the debt in 3 years (Bush added $4 Trillion over 8 years).

Bottom line is that Paul is not the right candidate and Obama is a disaster.

Regardless, dig deeper. There is plenty of time until November.

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1325765398' post='2363218']
the newsletters were not written by him (and he's apologized for them anyway since he knows he shouldn't have put those people in charge of them like that), and if his 30 year record and various endorsements from the NAACP in his county can't convince you, then nothing can. he's certainly not a truther, nor an anti-semite, but you're viewing everything through the partisan bubble, which teaches people to capitalize on anything that tears down an opponent as much as they can. it's really quite sad in American politics how that works. ah well, such is life.

Obama has done very little different from Bush. He followed the trajectory set by Bush for increasing spending and bailouts, he increased powers over civil liberties the same way Bush would have, he followed Bush's timeline to a letter in Iraq while he still tried to negotiate to keep some troops up until the last minute. his healthcare law is still in contention so it hasn't really even done anything yet it seems, but all it would even do is strengthen the private health insurance industry by ensuring it would have a whole bunch of new customers. and Romney, et al., will do very little different from Bush/Obama. I'm more concerned about another president from the Bush/Obama camp than anything else. The only other person who might've done things slightly different from Bush/Obama was Bachman (not that I supported her, but I found her at least sincere in her rhetoric), and she's out anyway.

I actually wonder if a Ron Paul 3rd party run couldn't steal an equal amount away from Obama on the anti-war platform as it stole from the GOP. it'd be interesting to see happen. But I refuse to ever again play the game of the two-party system about how not voting for some vomit inducing sleazeball politician talking out of both sides of his mouth is going to bring about certain doom because the other vomit inducing sleazeball politician talking out of both sides of his mouth is worse for some reason. Romney vs. Obama is no contest to me, because to be quite honest, I don't care which of them wins. The only one who might get me to swallow my vomit long enough to vote for him over Obama (other than Ron Paul who I'd vote for happily) might be Santorum, though it really makes me sick to my stomach to see us all goading Iran into a war.
[/quote]

[dominicansoul]

[sup]Is rick santorum really as pro-life as he claims? I thought he backed a pro-abort politician back in the day? [/sup]


[sup]could it be he's pronouncing his pro-life beliefs for political expediency? Just wondering........[/sup]

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1325788527' post='2363445']
[sup]Is rick santorum really as pro-life as he claims? I thought he backed a pro-abort politician back in the day? [/sup]


[sup]could it be he's pronouncing his pro-life beliefs for political expediency? Just wondering........[/sup]
[/quote]
It could be, for sure, but he is also very open about his anti-contraceptive stances, which is certainly not something one flaunts to gain a political edge (heard a stat on TV yesterday that 98% of Americans are pro-contraception).

Edited January 5, 2012 by USAirwaysIHS