Thread: For or against Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

[Don't we already have some employer verification / documentation laws on the books? If so, why would new laws work if those didn't?

I would much rather try his approach of cutting them off of the economic knees that creating yet another bureaucratic paperwork laden top heavy burden that will affect small business more harshly than big business. I don't want the government thugs barging in and demanding records from business owners if we can avoid it.

The potential for abuse is huge, IMHO. Look what they've done with drug laws. How hard is it to imagine a scenario where a company the size of Motorola or Tyson gets infinite extra time to produce their papers, but a start-up competitor is seized by immigration police, and their company effectively put out of business, in the name of a campaign donation or two. We're not kids here - this stuff happens all the time.

Actually, this is exactly what the SAVE Act is attempting to adress. It is not a huge, burdonsome, paper laden bereaucracy. E-verify is more efficient, electronic way of verifying employment eligibility. It will make it mandatory for ALL employers, so that those using it will not be cheated by those who (under current law) choose not too.

http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/attrition.html

The E-Verify Program provides employers with an inexpensive, quick, and accurate way to verify employee eligibility. E-Verify has already achieved tremendous success, but is currently voluntary and offers little incentive for employers to participate. This puts users at an economic disadvantage when it is only being used by a fraction of U.S. employers and competitors continue to hire illegal aliens.

I don't trust the government any more. There's too much money at stake. I believe that the immigration is the single-most contributing factor to our economic woes. Housing bust, credit crunch, all that stems from the deliberate manipulation of the labor market.

But don't these problems also exist with cutting off welfare and other social services? If you don't trust the government, then how do you trust them to no longer house, feed, educate, etc illegals? Paul will never be able to single handedly end welfare and social services, his proposals will never get past congress. We already tried to do end social services for illegals in California, and we were overuled by the judges. Its not always as simple as "giving the power to the states." We need to be open to ALL methods of eradicating illegal immigration at state and federal levels.

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by stealthwii

Originally Posted by Bren4824

The assasination of Pakistan's former Prime Mininster Bhutto by a suicide bomber today proves that Ron Paul's policy of "ignore them unless they come on our soil" will NOT work. And, he doesn't even want to put up a fence to prevent them from coming on our soil.

Now, the entire region there is of GREAT concern as Pakistan became one of the most Westernized, Democratic countries in the Middle East under her leadership. Not it could break out into civil war---as the Muslim extremists try to take it over. Also, Pakistan has nukes which could end up in the hands of terrorists!!

This is the MAIN reason that Tancredo said that he could not support Ron Paul.

The assassination of Bhutto is a tragedy - but it doesnt negate Ron Paul's foreign policy at all - we have been interfering in Pakistan a lot under Bush - supporting the military dictatorship of Mushraeff (sp)! And even though we've now given Pakistan billions, helping support this dictatorship, they still have regions of the country under terrorist control!

So we've spend lots of money supporting a country that is under a dictatorship, it hasnt caught us Bin Laden, or closed down the terrorist organizations in Pakistan. Instead its made the citizens mad at the USA for interfering in their country - supporting a controlling, backward government - its because we haven't been following a policy of non-intervention, no entangling alliances that we are in this mess!

Interfering more will only make things worse for the USA. We need to get out of the way, let Pakistan work out its disputes, stop supporting the current dictatorship, stop making enemies in a country that has nuclear weapons. We can encourage democracy, but we cant force our way around the world.

Due to Bhutto---Pakistan was one of the most Westernized, Democratic countries in the entire region----that could very easily end up in civil war now.

And, your da*n straight that the US will end up interfering----as Pakistan has nukes that could very easily end up in the hands of terrorists.

Bren, you completely ignored what I said.

Its not that the US "will end up interfering" We HAVE been interfering in Pakistan, supporting a dictatorship. The assassination of Bhutto does not prove that non-intervention is a bad foreign policy.

If Pakistan becomes a credible threat to the USA, then the USA can declare war on pakistan through the Congress, with whom the sole authority lies to declare war. Ron Paul would support that, as its constitutional. What is not constitutional is the CIA running around creating messes in other countries under the authority of the President, or in some cases - a non-elected beaurocrat.

Well, as many here probably have noticed, I've been away from the boards for a while - but have recently found the time to get back on (well, for a few minutes anyway).

Just wanted to offer a couple things with respect to the current discussion.

a). I have purposefully avoided the subject - as it is still early (well, sort of) and I do understand the debate about important issues pertaining to the candidates is ongoing and somewhat fluid.

b). I would like to offer for everyone to consider a couple of things - not to derail support for or against any one candidate, but hopefully, to get people thinking about a simple but basic question: "Are we asking the right [best] question(s)"?


To me, many interesting points have arisen from the discussions thus far.

>> The voting history of RP (Ron Paul). Is he what he claims to be, or is he something other?

>> Do any of the other more mainstream (eg. 'top-tier') candidates (Huckster, Thompson, Romney) really believe the harder-stance on immigration related matters, or is it all 'hype-speech' just to get elected?

>> Is 'philosophical alignment' (with one's own views) more important than overall 'electability' when supporting a candidate?

>> Adherence and / or membership of the CFR... Does it exist? Do people meet and conspire to really 'rule the world' (or at least the US)...??
Or is all nutjob conspiracy theorists at work? (I had read a great quote from a LEFT-wing university professor when asked about this very subject replied like this: "well, yes, I do believe there are important people that meet to decide this stuff...") I tend to believe it too...

>> Can a candidate be 'good' in some areas of immigration policy and be mediocre or bad in other areas? (I am specifically wondering about blatant illegal immigration vs. mass "legal" worker importation...). Seems to me, like there are significant differences on the issue between Paul, Hunter, etc.

>> How to 'resolve' (for lack of a better word) the differences between the highest ranked candidate on immigration issues (currently Hunter) vs. the larger support and potential electability of a candidate like Ron Paul?

>> And, let me tread the relatively uncharted territory here - is there any way we can pressure/support a Democratic candidate to take a more friendly (principled, stronger) position on immigration as a way to gain support? ( I know, you may throw your defeatist accusation at me, but I am wanting to have all the bases covered if you know what I mean here).
Admittedly, all the Dems are very bad on the issue overall.

Where is Byron Dorgan? We need him to run. He's not perfect on the issue, but at least, he is 'in the ballpark' and the country might even stand a chance of surviving with a Demo leader like him, otherwise.... oooh.

Balboa wrote:

Well I believe that Ron Paul is the best and well balanced candidate out there

I would emphatically disagree. In my opinion, Paul is anything but well balanced, especially when compared to Duncan Hunter.

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Bren tell me what you know about Bhutto ? What kind of leader was she ?

I do not condone her assasination in anyway.It is a sad day when this type of incident occurs.

She was very educated, modern, Westernized, and Democratic. She was LOVED by the people of Pakistan. She was the reason that citizens of Pakistan fought against letting the Muslim terrorists take over----as they knew how much they liked life in Pakistan----as oppossed to seeing how other citizens in neighboring countries were FORCED to live.

Pakistan has nukes, and so does its neighbor India.

There is a VERY strong potential for civil war in Pakistan----and the Muslim terrorists are going to now try even HARDER to take over Pakistan----as they have been attempting to do for a long time.

Do you know why she left Pakistan in the first place ? She was found guilty of corruption and nepotism so she was allowed to leave Pakistan rather then go to prison.

I do not know if she was actually guilty or if she was framed but non the less she did have a cloud over her head.

Like I said our present White House administration has not been able to stop what is happening in Pakistan and we have military in the region.Yet you jump to conclusions about Dr. Paul that are totally unfounded and absurb.You truely have NO idea how he would deal with this type of situation NONE.It is just conjecture,nothing more.

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Bren tell me what you know about Bhutto ? What kind of leader was she ?

I do not condone her assasination in anyway.It is a sad day when this type of incident occurs.

She was very educated, modern, Westernized, and Democratic. She was LOVED by the people of Pakistan. She was the reason that citizens of Pakistan fought against letting the Muslim terrorists take over----as they knew how much they liked life in Pakistan----as oppossed to seeing how other citizens in neighboring countries were FORCED to live.

Pakistan has nukes, and so does its neighbor India.

There is a VERY strong potential for civil war in Pakistan----and the Muslim terrorists are going to now try even HARDER to take over Pakistan----as they have been attempting to do for a long time.

Do you know why she left Pakistan in the first place ? She was found guilty of corruption and nepotism so she was allowed to leave Pakistan rather then go to prison.

I do not know if she was actually guilty or if she was framed but non the less she did have a cloud over her head.

Like I said our present White House administration has not been able to stop what is happening in Pakistan and we have military in the region.Yet you jump to conclusions about Dr. Paul that are totally unfounded and absurb.You truely have NO idea how he would deal with this type of situation NONE.It is just conjecture,nothing more.

Well, I am sure that this will be one of the questions he will be asked about during the interview!!

Originally Posted by Bren4824

The assasination of Pakistan's former Prime Mininster Bhutto by a suicide bomber today proves that Ron Paul's policy of "ignore them unless they come on our soil" will NOT work. And, he doesn't even want to put up a fence to prevent them from coming on our soil.

Now, the entire region there is of GREAT concern as Pakistan became one of the most Westernized, Democratic countries in the Middle East under her leadership. Now it could break out into civil war---as the Muslim extremists try to take it over. Also, Pakistan has nukes which could end up in the hands of terrorists!!

This is the MAIN reason that Tancredo said that he could not support Ron Paul.

Bhutto was NOT assassinated by a suicide bomber, she took a couple of bullets to the head.

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Bren tell me what you know about Bhutto ? What kind of leader was she ?

I do not condone her assasination in anyway.It is a sad day when this type of incident occurs.

She was very educated, modern, Westernized, and Democratic. She was LOVED by the people of Pakistan. She was the reason that citizens of Pakistan fought against letting the Muslim terrorists take over----as they knew how much they liked life in Pakistan----as oppossed to seeing how other citizens in neighboring countries were FORCED to live.

Pakistan has nukes, and so does its neighbor India.

There is a VERY strong potential for civil war in Pakistan----and the Muslim terrorists are going to now try even HARDER to take over Pakistan----as they have been attempting to do for a long time.

Do you know why she left Pakistan in the first place ? She was found guilty of corruption and nepotism so she was allowed to leave Pakistan rather then go to prison.

I do not know if she was actually guilty or if she was framed but non the less she did have a cloud over her head.

Like I said our present White House administration has not been able to stop what is happening in Pakistan and we have military in the region.Yet you jump to conclusions about Dr. Paul that are totally unfounded and absurb.You truely have NO idea how he would deal with this type of situation NONE.It is just conjecture,nothing more.

Ummmmm.....She was in Pakistan when she was assasinated---right after giving a speech.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by Bren4824

The assasination of Pakistan's former Prime Mininster Bhutto by a suicide bomber today proves that Ron Paul's policy of "ignore them unless they come on our soil" will NOT work. And, he doesn't even want to put up a fence to prevent them from coming on our soil.

Now, the entire region there is of GREAT concern as Pakistan became one of the most Westernized, Democratic countries in the Middle East under her leadership. Now it could break out into civil war---as the Muslim extremists try to take it over. Also, Pakistan has nukes which could end up in the hands of terrorists!!

This is the MAIN reason that Tancredo said that he could not support Ron Paul.

Bhutto was NOT assassinated by a suicide bomber, she took a couple of bullets to the head.

She took a couple of bullets, then the suicide bomber DEFINITELY finished her (and others) off by using the bomb!!!

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Bren tell me what you know about Bhutto ? What kind of leader was she ?

I do not condone her assasination in anyway.It is a sad day when this type of incident occurs.

She was very educated, modern, Westernized, and Democratic. She was LOVED by the people of Pakistan. She was the reason that citizens of Pakistan fought against letting the Muslim terrorists take over----as they knew how much they liked life in Pakistan----as oppossed to seeing how other citizens in neighboring countries were FORCED to live.

Pakistan has nukes, and so does its neighbor India.

There is a VERY strong potential for civil war in Pakistan----and the Muslim terrorists are going to now try even HARDER to take over Pakistan----as they have been attempting to do for a long time.

Do you know why she left Pakistan in the first place ? She was found guilty of corruption and nepotism so she was allowed to leave Pakistan rather then go to prison.

I do not know if she was actually guilty or if she was framed but non the less she did have a cloud over her head.

Like I said our present White House administration has not been able to stop what is happening in Pakistan and we have military in the region.Yet you jump to conclusions about Dr. Paul that are totally unfounded and absurb.You truely have NO idea how he would deal with this type of situation NONE.It is just conjecture,nothing more.

Watch Fox News. They are talking about her now---and have been over the past hour.