Thread: For or against Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by kneemow

Ok, I'll be captain obvious this time. What in the name of jose cuervo does any talk of pakistan, muslims, or jews have to do with the original topic thread. Would everyone kindly drop everything off topic and go back to what this original thread was about. Start a new thread about the recent events if you want to. Stop hijacking one thread to argue whatever is off topic from the original one. Please.

My original point was about how I support RPs nonintervention and the mistakes other Presidents have made by intervening in other Nations business. We are better off keeping our leaders out of foriegn affairs because none will satisfy everyone in this country. We can help other countries through trade!

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.

What we will end up interfering. We have been interfering. It is our CIA interfering and forcing Musheroff into a democratic election is what part of this is about. Where have you been?

Originally Posted by agrneydgrl

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.

What we will end up interfering. We have been interfering. It is our CIA interfering and forcing Musheroff into a democratic election is what part of this is about. Where have you been?

Ummmm......Where have you been......We would all like to live in a "pretend" world and say that if we ignore them, they will go away. However, in the "real" world, it doesn't work that way. Terrorists with nukes could be only a plane ride away.

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:lx1xeyvy]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:lx1xeyvy]

He says that he will take his ideas to the people and then congress will have to do what the people will. Just as we have told them in no uncertain terms that we want a fence and stronger immigration enforcement. It is finally working at the state level and we will be voting out the old and voting in the new.l

Originally Posted by agrneydgrl

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:33xlkg2x]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.

He says that he will take his ideas to the people and then congress will have to do what the people will. Just as we have told them in no uncertain terms that we want a fence and stronger immigration enforcement. It is finally working at the state level and we will be voting out the old and voting in the new.l[/quote:33xlkg2x]

He has NO plans/intentions of going after employers.

Can you post his plans for going after employers??

William interviewed Dr. Paul tonight in Iowa. I'm sure as soon as it's posted it will answer your questions...

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

William interviewed Dr. Paul tonight in Iowa. I'm sure as soon as it's posted it will answer your questions...

Did you hear the interview, what station was it on??

Post it under this thread, when it surfaces.

Originally Posted by Bren4824

He has NO plans/intentions of going after employers.

Can you post his plans for going after employers??

We discussed this before, I am fairly certain that Ron Paul would consider this unconstitutional and would prefer that this be dealt with at the state level. He is a true federalist in every sense of the term.

I would think this *should* require a constitutional amendment. If not, please post for me the section of the consitution that would give the federal government the rights to go after employers. I could be wrong, but I am always happy to be educated, so feel free.

I am voting for Ron Paul because he was consistently put America First.

His objections to NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc is all about National Sovereighty.

His objections to the Iraq War have been proven correct, and I don't give a crap if Iraq goes into a civil war when we leave. I am tired of paying for it.

He recognizes that our fiscal policy is one of the most serious issues facing this nation. And has the knowledge to back it up. China could decimate us whenever they want! Just by dumping their dollars.

His stance on Illegal Immigration is solid and backed primarily by what is best for this country.

Originally Posted by specsaregood

We discussed this before, I am fairly certain that Ron Paul would consider this unconstitutional and would prefer that this be dealt with at the state level. He is a true federalist in every sense of the term.

I would think this *should* require a constitutional amendment. If not, please post for me the section of the consitution that would give the federal government the rights to go after employers. I could be wrong, but I am always happy to be educated, so feel free.

Well, illegals are not even allowed to be here. I think employers are aiding and abetting in massive widespread crime. They are aiding the invasion of the United States of America, and lobbying the government to meet that aim.

What would the founders do?

How did they treat people who they considered non-Americans staking claim on American land? How would they treat those who aided and abetted them?

Where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to enact Guest Worker Programs? Paul has voted for that.