Thread: "I am for free trade," Ron Paul on the Lawrence Ku

Vote records dont lie !!!
But, somebody who is being considered for a political office or an official position will !!!

Re:

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm[/b][/quote]

Well, what the hell is going on?

Originally Posted by the above URL

Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 199
No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)
Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)

Originally Posted by the Sippy MW posting

- Cosponsoring legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006.

- Nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998.

- Voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers.

- Voted against an amendment to reduce funding for the visa waver program.

- Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003.

Hey guys, what's going on???
My I re-raise my question? Is he a globalist or an American?
Which is it?

Well, let me raise the question this way...

Is he a member of

The Council on Foreign Relations?
The Bilderbergs?
The Illuminati?
The Trilateral Commission?

Originally Posted by MW

Sippy wrote:

MW, if you are going to keep finding these articles

I didn't go out searching for this article, it was sent to me by America First.

[quote:2hvpe6ui]MW, if you are going to keep finding these articles in an attempt to persuade people against Paul, it would be nice if you would also point out Mr. Hunter's weaknesses as well.

Every single presidential candidate has some weaknesses, some more than other, I'm not denying that. However, it is a documented fact that Paul has a lot more than Hunter and Tancredo where illegal immigration/border security are concerned.

As for foreign worker related votes:

Paul:

- Cosponsoring legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006.

- Nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998.

- Voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers.

- Voted against an amendment to reduce funding for the visa waver program.

- Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003.

Hunter:

- Voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans to make room for foreign workers.

- Tried to continue foreign nurse guestworker program in 1996.


Tancredo has none of these votes on his record with NumberUSA.[/quote:2hvpe6ui]

MW, you are correct about that. Paul's record on immigration is weaker than both Hunter and Tancredo. But I'm very uncomfortable with Hunter's stance on foreigh policy. While it's admirable that we want to spread peace throughout the world, we cannot be the policeman of the world either and I'm afraid we may be headed down this road, as we are with BOOSH, if Hunter gets elected.

I meant no disrespect in my earlier post. I think Hunter's view on many things as well as Paul's.
It just seems that lately you are on a Ron Paul bashing...

Paul will get my first vote, but if Hunter gets the nomination and Paul doesn't, then for sure I will be voting for Duncan.

In no way will I EVER vote for the primaries we have now.

Coto, I do not believe Congressman Hunter is a member of either the CFR or the Tri lats. I know MW will have good information regarding this.

Originally Posted by Coto

Hey guys, what's going on???
My I re-raise my question? Is he a globalist or an American?
Which is it?

Well, its like the article said:
It is true that Ron Paul has voted against Free Trade agreements, but the reasons he has always given are that these agreements impinge on the sovereignty of the United States, not that free trade is inherently destructive. On the Kudlow show, he clearly embraces Free Trade.

I saw Paul on Lou Dobbs explain that he supports free-trade, but not internationally managed trade. He only opposes trade agreements that threaten our sovereignty. He does NOT oppose outsourcing and globalism outright. In fact, on Paul's site he clearly states that he want the US to UNILATERALLY eliminate our tariffs. What this means is that we end our protection of American industry and jobs (what little we have left) while foreign nations are free to keep their tariffs sky-high. This is the same mentality that has given us a $6 trillion trade deficit.

I don't understand how Paul can justify being so in sinc with the ideals of the founders while opposing the existence of American tariffs on foreign goods. The Constitution clearly states that the government has the right to use tariffs as a means of regulating trade. And the founding fathers carried that out in their governance. Using tariffs as a means of protecting American jobs and industry. In fact, tariffs were the primary source of government revenue from the founding of the nation until the Civil War. And remained a large source of revenue until about 25 years ago. Paul says his policy positions are based on the constituion and the founders. So..........what in the world is Paul basing his rejection of tariffs upon?

Sippy wrote:

It just seems that lately you are on a Ron Paul bashing...

I think you've got me all wrong, sippy. I'm not spreading lies or misleading anyone. I may have offered a few opinion and a little conjecture here and there, but most of everything I've offered up on Ron Paul is based in fact, and I've provided the evidence to prove it. I just can't understand this fascination some have with Paul. All I see is a lot of inconsistencies in his voting record and empty rhetoric. Sure, he has a lot to say, however, he's not offering many plans on how he hopes to accomplish his goals. For example, I think you and I both know he will not have the power to abolish the IRS or the Federal Reserve. To even suggest such forces me to question his reasoning abilities. I recommend you thoroughly research is voting record and combine that with some of the things he's said during his campaign. Doing so will identify some of the inconsistencies I'm speaking off.

But I'm very uncomfortable with Hunter's stance on foreigh policy.

It's funny you should say that, because I'm extremely uncomfortable with the thought of Ron Paul as our nations Commander-In-Chief. With Ron Paul at the helm, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that he could ignore world problems that could eventually lead us into a battle for the survival of mankind. Can't you see him allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities? I also doubt he would intervene when North Korea moves on Taiwan. His ideas on complete non-intervention is scary to me.

MW, I know you better than that, and I know you wouldn't intentionally spread false data. We've been on this forum together for many moons now!

On the Iran issue, if we knew for sure that Iran was actually building nuclear weapons and threatning to use them, I think Paul would act differently.
On the Taiwan issue, I think if China did move on them and Taiwan asked for our help, I think Paul would intervene.
That's the big problem right now with Iran is we don't have evidence that they actually are creating nuclear weapons. I might be mistaken, but I've searched and haven't found anything which states we know for certain that Iran is building nuclear weapons.
Personally, the thought of Iran doing this scares the hell out of me, but I don't think we should go to war with them based on suspicion. We did this with Iraq under the guise of terrorism but with the hidden agenda to protect our oil assets.
I have no doubts that Sadam had WMD's, but it would have helped our cause over there if we had found them.

I have researched Paul's voting record, and yes I have found some which raise eyebrows. Of course, with any politician, even Tancredo, I've found this same thing.
The biggest thing that scares me about Duncan is that many of his world policing policies are aligned with BOOSH and we don't need another one of these.
Bearflag brings up a good point regarding Paul's sinc with the Constitution, and yet he still supports free trade.
Interestingly enough, Paul voted against implementation of CAFTA, NAFTA, the US-Singapore free trade agreement, US-Austrailia free trade agreement, and he voted to withdraw from the WTO. Yet he still wants free trade. This I really do have an issue with because I simply don't believe free trade works. We have been trying this, and as we know, NAFTA, CAFTA, and other trade treaties have not been good for America.

Maybe when Ron Paul say he is for free trade he means he is for free trade.

That may be totally different than some of the double speak programs the government comes up with that mean the opposite of what they are called.

Like Family Planning or Free Trade or many others that slip my mind at the moment.

sippy,

See how the link you made goes all the way across the page. On my computer it makes it go so far across that it makes the page wider than my computer monitor. When it does that it makes a slider bar at the bottom of the page that I have to slide to read the end of the lines.

You may not see it if you have a real wide computer screen.

If you post a link that comes out to long and makes the page real wide you can do this.

real long one

Then you can change it like this.

long[/color] one]real...one

Take enough out of the middle to still have it make sense... or you can use a new name if you want like this.

Change:
http;//www.fark.com/

To:
Fark

And you get this:

Fark

If you still don't see what I mean don't worry about it. I see it happen all of the time. I just try and tell people because it takes a while before most of us realize why the pages get real wide the way they do.

StokeyBob

Originally Posted by StokeyBob

sippy,

See how the link you made goes all the way across the page. On my computer it makes it go so far across that it makes the page wider than my computer monitor. When it does that it makes a slider bar at the bottom of the page that I have to slide to read the end of the lines.

You may not see it if you have a real wide computer screen.

If you post a link that comes out to long and makes the page real wide you can do this.

real long one

Then you can change it like this.

long[/color] one]real...one

Take enough out of the middle to still have it make sense... or you can use a new name if you want like this.

Change:
http;//www.fark.com/

To:
Fark

And you get this:

Fark

If you still don't see what I mean don't worry about it. I see it happen all of the time. I just try and tell people because it takes a while before most of us realize why the pages get real wide the way they do.

StokeyBob


P.S. Or paste this in to replace it.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gold-surges-recor...ist=TNMostRead

Stokey, that's weird. I'm just on my laptop and it shows up fine.