Thread: For or against Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

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.

[quote:8tlkh3m7]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.[/quote:8tlkh3m7]

Ron Paul voted against Hunter's fence/border security bill.

Ron Paul has no plans for going after employers.

Ron Paul has no plans for preventing illegals from using fraudulent documents.

In 2004, Arizona passed 4 Props to take all social benefits (welfare, etc.)away from illegals. Guess what???? The illegals did NOT leave and they kept on coming.

In wasn't until recently----when they began taking steps to prevent illegals from getting jobs-----is when the illegals began to leave!!!!!

Bren Bhutto was recently given Amnesty and allowed to return to Pakistan,I think in Oct.

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Bren Bhutto was recently given Amnesty and allowed to return to Pakistan,I think in Oct.

Watch Fox News----they have been talking about her/the situation over the past few hours.

She is considered a heroine.

She was exiled due to her enemies lying and FORCING her out!!

President Reagan a supporter of Paul? Congressman Ron Paul supporter or not, you should check out this column I found by a guy named Matt Towery. He used to be the chair for Newt’s political campaigns and now he writes a national political column and he does a web broadcast about everyday. Anyway, one of his sites is http://www.insideradvantage.com were he’s posted an article about how Reagan would be a supporter of Paul?!

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by USPatriot

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.

Bren you are reeaally reaching here associating Dr. Paul with the mess in Pakistan.

We have a war monger (imo) in the White House now and that did not stop what is happening in Pakistan.

So stop with your attacks on Dr. Paul unless you have a ligitimate beef.This is becoming rediculous.

Some of you are the ones who are ridiculous. You completely ignore the "unrealistic" policies/plans of Ron Paul.

Plus, you lie!! I never said that Ron Paul was the blame for what happened in Pakistan. I said the situation in Pakistan proves that Ron Paul's policies/plans regarding international affairs, will NOT work---and will put the US and US citizens in danger.

This is one of the MAIN reasons that Tom Tancredo said that he could never support Ron Paul.

We are fighting a war in Iraq, who had nothing to do with 911. Now for those who agree with the war against the Taliban, in Afghanistan, then there may be an argumant that we should have invaded Pakistan to get Bin Laden (who has never been in Iraq)!

Since Bren thinks Pakistan is such a wonderful Democracy then why haven't they turned over Bin Laden to us? I'm in the camp if you think another country has a better democracy than the USA then move there.

India has Nukes and a very good intelligence agency and will keep Pakistan in check in fact the real Democracy in that region is India. This may very well help India. In case you didn't know, Bren, Pakistan was apart of India until the muslims invaded and converted or killed all the hindus and buddha in that region.

President Reagan a supporter of Paul? Congressman Ron Paul supporter or not, you should check out this column I found by a guy named Matt Towery. He used to be the chair for Newt’s political campaigns and now he writes a national political column and he does a web broadcast about everyday. Anyway, one of his sites is http://www.insideradvantage.com were he’s posted an article about how Reagan would be a supporter of Paul?!

Originally Posted by grassrootsblog

President Reagan a supporter of Paul? Congressman Ron Paul supporter or not, you should check out this column I found by a guy named Matt Towery. He used to be the chair for Newt’s political campaigns and now he writes a national political column and he does a web broadcast about everyday. Anyway, one of his sites is http://www.insideradvantage.com were he’s posted an article about how Reagan would be a supporter of Paul?!

I posted it in 'Other Topics' already...

Welcome grassrootsblog and please join in the debate.

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by USPatriot

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.

Bren you are reeaally reaching here associating Dr. Paul with the mess in Pakistan.

We have a war monger (imo) in the White House now and that did not stop what is happening in Pakistan.

So stop with your attacks on Dr. Paul unless you have a ligitimate beef.This is becoming rediculous.

Some of you are the ones who are ridiculous. You completely ignore the "unrealistic" policies/plans of Ron Paul.

Plus, you lie!! I never said that Ron Paul was the blame for what happened in Pakistan. I said the situation in Pakistan proves that Ron Paul's policies/plans regarding international affairs, will NOT work---and will put the US and US citizens in danger.

This is one of the MAIN reasons that Tom Tancredo said that he could never support Ron Paul.

We are fighting a war in Iraq, who had nothing to do with 911. Now for those who agree with the war against the Taliban, in Afghanistan, then there may be an argumant that we should have invaded Pakistan to get Bin Laden (who has never been in Iraq)!

Since Bren thinks Pakistan is such a wonderful Democracy then why haven't they turned over Bin Laden to us? I'm in the camp if you think another country has a better democracy than the USA then move there.

India has Nukes and a very good intelligence agency and will keep Pakistan in check in fact the real Democracy in that region is India. This may very well help India. In case you didn't know, Bren, Pakistan was apart of India until the muslims invaded and converted or killed all the hindus and buddha in that region.

There are the lies again!!! I NEVER said that Pakistan had a BETTER democracy than the US. I said that the country is one of the better in the Middle East.

Pakistan has nukes!! You now have terrorists who are going to try to take over Pakistan and get their hands on the nukes.

grassrootsblog wrote:

President Reagan a supporter of Paul? Congressman Ron Paul supporter or not, you should check out this column I found by a guy named Matt Towery. He used to be the chair for Newt’s political campaigns and now he writes a national political column and he does a web broadcast about everyday. Anyway, one of his sites is http://www.insideradvantage.com were he’s posted an article about how Reagan would be a supporter of Paul?!

More than likely Reagan would have supported Duncan Hunter over the rest of the field. Hunter had history with Reagan and with the exception of the 1986 amnesty, he was a huge supporter of Reagan policy.

Excerpt:

In 1983, Ronald Reagan attempted to pass a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Duncan Hunter opposed him (although he had regularly supported Ronald Reagan and his endeavors in the past), claiming that it would cause a rush to our borders. Later, Reagan admitted that Duncan Hunter was right and the amnesty was a bad idea.

http://dhgrassrevolt.wordpress.com/2007 ... t-so-much/

Quote:
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Michael Reagan On Duncan Hunter

President Reagan's oldest son on Duncan Hunter's performance in the Michigan debate (H/T: The Duncan Hunter Grass-Revolt and Spark It Up!!!):

On the subject of the debate -- the economy -- Duncan Hunter showed the best grasp of the facts, especially the trade issue, while Thompson basically spoke in platitudes on the subject.

...the best-qualified of all the candidates is Rep. Duncan Hunter. During the debate he was the candidate who provided the best information about the economy and had a first-rate suggestion of what we need to do.

He keyed in on what must be one of the most important economic issues –trade.

He talked about our shocking $800 billion trade deficit, and what the Chinese are doing to us. Duncan understands that when anybody cites Ronald Reagan as a free-trade advocate in defense of our present trade policies, they need to remember that in my dad’s playbook, protection of the American people came before anything else.

Hunter is solid, completely solid on life issues like abortion, ESCR, and gay "marriage", as well as illegal immigration, economic issues, and defense.

With Hunter, it's not about promises. He has the record that shows he understands the issues, and has provided leadership in Congress on them all.

He has more experience in government than most of his opponents, with a better record of accomplishment than any of them. Best of all, unlike any of the Democrats, he is credibly an adult.

Then there's my favorite thing: Hunter doesn't require that you compromise some of your cherished values in order to get the rest, unlike a certain mayor who has gotten far too much attention of late.

Duncan Hunter deserves the consideration, and maybe even the vote, of every conservative. He has my unqualified "Regular Guy" endorsement.


http://regularthoughts.blogspot.com/200 ... unter.html

Ronald Reagan's own son has given his "Regular Guy" (whatever that is) endorsement to Duncan Hunter.