Thread: BREAKING ~ THOMPSON DUMPING OUT

With the way Mitt Romney flip flops on issues who is to say that he doesn't believe he is Mexican first!

It seems you've run out of ammo if this is all you have to say now.

But Romney has a good record on illegal immigration and does not have the funky libertarian baggage that Ron Paul has.

Did you notice Beck's rating of Romney?

Delta,

I'll post on those forums tonight when I'm done working.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

With the way Mitt Romney flip flops on issues who is to say that he doesn't believe he is Mexican first!

It seems you've run out of ammo if this is all you have to say now.

But Romney has a good record on illegal immigration and does not have the funky libertarian baggage that Ron Paul has.

Did you notice Beck's rating of Romney?

"But" means the afore mentioned sentence is wrong, lol!

Romney's record is quite pathetic he did not enforce the bill by Congress, that Ron Paul voted for to give States and local jurisdictions the authority to enforce the 1986 federal law against illegals, until weeks before he left office knowing the liberal who followed was going to drop it (and he did).

He did nothing to break up the illegal sancuary cities in Mass while he was Governor.

He has made statement in 2005 and 2006 in support of McInsane and Kennedy's amnesty plan.

If you would like me to provide links I will!

Furthermore he is funded by at least four or five CFR corporations!

The record is what counts and Romney has the best blend on issues and viability as a real world practical and tactical candidate.

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... z2008.html

Originally Posted by Jonathan

With the way Mitt Romney flip flops on issues .....!

But Romney has a good record on illegal immigration and does not have the funky libertarian baggage that Ron Paul has.

This is a rediculous response to Paul when paul has a 20 year record that is rock solid on being a STRICT constitutionalist (which would DRASTICALLY change our current government....something that NEEDS desperately to happen). None of the other "status quo" GOP candidates will "pull the plug" and actually CLOSE DOWN and remove the GOV that has become BLOATED and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

And even more importantly Paul is ROCK SOLID on economics and monetary policy as the FEDERAL RESERVE has ripped us all off!!!

Look what Ronald Reagan says about being a Libertarian (which simply means you want LIBERTY!! (thats what our founders died for: Liberty, NOT "democracy").

Ronald Reagan from '75 Reason magazine:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

Hmmmm.......It sounds like Ron Paul is in favor of the NAU!!!

And, the more you look at Paul's current statement and plans........the worse he looks:

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

I think we could be much more generous with our immigration.


We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue.


What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home.

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...migration.html

Originally Posted by Jonathan

The record is what counts and Romney has the best blend on issues and viability as a real world practical and tactical candidate.

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... z2008.html

According to Roy Beck Huckabee has more "excellent" ratings than Romney in regards to immigration and if you look at his (Huckabee) record in Arkansas, as governor, he is even more pathetic than Romney!

Believe what you want from that site however all you have to do is look at Ron Paul's voting record which is in accordance with the Constitution. He believes our Constitution is all we have to maintain soveriegnty, something he believes in.

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Hmmmm.......It sounds like Ron Paul is in favor of the NAU!!!

And, the more you look at Paul's current statement and plans........the worse he looks:

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

I think we could be much more generous with our immigration.


We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue.


What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home.

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...migration.html

We all know your only interest in Romney is aesthetics all the stupidity you pull up against Ron Paul has no merit.

RP is and has never been associated with the CFR and Romney writes articles for them. GW Bush supposedly was not a member however his dad was and look at the mess we're in now! Romney's father was associated with the CFR people since he was appointed to the HUD department under CFR Nixon! Romney is funded by at least four or five CFR corporations so the writing is on the wall if he gets in, then maybe you can get an intern job with him - hope you know some spanish!

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Hmmmm.......It sounds like Ron Paul is in favor of the NAU!!!

And, the more you look at Paul's current statement and plans........the worse he looks:

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

I think we could be much more generous with our immigration.


We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue.


What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home.

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...migration.html

We all know your only interest in Romney is aesthetics all the stupidity you pull up against Ron Paul has no merit.

RP is and has never been associated with the CFR and Romney writes articles for them. GW Bush supposedly was not a member however his dad was and look at the mess we're in now! Romney's father was associated with the CFR people since he was appointed to the HUD department under CFR Nixon! Romney is funded by at least four or five CFR corporations so the writing is on the wall if he gets in, then maybe you can get an intern job with him - hope you know some spanish!

I just posted an article with Ron Paul's own words------from Real Politics, a reputable source. How can you say that it is stupidity and has no merit???

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Hmmmm.......It sounds like Ron Paul is in favor of the NAU!!!

And, the more you look at Paul's current statement and plans........the worse he looks:

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

I think we could be much more generous with our immigration.


We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue.


What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home.

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...migration.html

We all know your only interest in Romney is aesthetics all the stupidity you pull up against Ron Paul has no merit.

RP is and has never been associated with the CFR and Romney writes articles for them. GW Bush supposedly was not a member however his dad was and look at the mess we're in now! Romney's father was associated with the CFR people since he was appointed to the HUD department under CFR Nixon! Romney is funded by at least four or five CFR corporations so the writing is on the wall if he gets in, then maybe you can get an intern job with him - hope you know some spanish!

I just posted an article with Ron Paul's own words------from Real Politics, a reputable source. How can you say that it is stupidity and has no merit???

What has no merit is your avoidance of his Constitutional credibility which means we have stay sovereign for our Constitution to work - some people get it and some choose not to get it!