Thread: BREAKING ~ THOMPSON DUMPING OUT

Originally Posted by sturmruger

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!

Would you like for me to post his voting record----in order to see his "real" constitutional credibility??

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."

First of all, Reagan was a neo-con.
Second, his libertarianism resulted in the rise of globalism with the tyranny of multinational corporations and the free flow of labor across borders (meaning illegal aliens).

Call it what you like, but I say we need a form of populism that results from a government that prevents excessive power from accumulating in the hands of the few. The goal of the 'economy' should be to promote the welfare of the majority of the people of our nation, the workers who produce the wealth rather than elites who benefit from globalism and the treatment of people as cogs in the machine rather than the basis of the state.

Balance of power is the key, and libertarianism usually results in the concentration of power in the hands of bullies. Whatever he may have intended, Reagan's policies led to power in the hands of the globalist corporate elites.

Originally Posted by Saki

Delta,

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

Thanks saki.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

First of all, Reagan was a neo-con.
Second, his libertarianism resulted in the rise of globalism with the tyranny of multinational corporations and the free flow of labor across borders (meaning illegal aliens).

Call it what you like, but I say we need a form of populism that results from a government that prevents excessive power from accumulating in the hands of the few. The goal of the 'economy' should be to promote the welfare of the majority of the people of our nation, the workers who produce the wealth rather than elites who benefit from globalism and the treatment of people as cogs in the machine rather than the basis of the state.

Balance of power is the key, and libertarianism usually results in the concentration of power in the hands of bullies. Whatever he may have intended, Reagan's policies led to power in the hands of the globalist corporate elites.

I agree. I can't stand libertarians. When you break down a philosophy based on the individual you eventually are stuck with anarchy, and lack of nationhood/sovereignty. Some forms of collectivism must be embraced in order for a nation to exist at all. That is why a libertarian form of government has never existed. And the founders were not libertarians. They were hard core economic nationalists. Economic nationalism was a huge reason the American Revolution developed. I agree that we need to get back to more of a populist economic system, because what we have seen is the stripping of regulations, tariffs, and other protections that have allowed corporations to run amuck in this nation, threatening to destroy our republic. "Call it what you want" is right. People are affraid of that word, so they steer clear of anything that could label them that. It reminds me of the "racist" label.

I sure am sorry to see Good Old Fred Go
Maybe he’ll make a run at backing up some of the goals for America he spoke about in his campaign speechs

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by Jonathan

First of all, Reagan was a neo-con.
Second, his libertarianism resulted in the rise of globalism with the tyranny of multinational corporations and the free flow of labor across borders (meaning illegal aliens).

Call it what you like, but I say we need a form of populism that results from a government that prevents excessive power from accumulating in the hands of the few. The goal of the 'economy' should be to promote the welfare of the majority of the people of our nation, the workers who produce the wealth rather than elites who benefit from globalism and the treatment of people as cogs in the machine rather than the basis of the state.

Balance of power is the key, and libertarianism usually results in the concentration of power in the hands of bullies. Whatever he may have intended, Reagan's policies led to power in the hands of the globalist corporate elites.

I agree. I can't stand libertarians. When you break down a philosophy based on the individual you eventually are stuck with anarchy, and lack of nationhood/sovereignty. Some forms of collectivism must be embraced in order for a nation to exist at all. That is why a libertarian form of government has never existed. And the founders were not libertarians. They were hard core economic nationalists. Economic nationalism was a huge reason the American Revolution developed. I agree that we need to get back to more of a populist economic system, because what we have seen is the stripping of regulations, tariffs, and other protections that have allowed corporations to run amuck in this nation, threatening to destroy our republic. "Call it what you want" is right. People are affraid of that word, so they steer clear of anything that could label them that. It reminds me of the "racist" label.

Well I would hardly call wanting to actually live by the Constitution as "anarchy". You do realize that Thomas Jefferson before his death was upset that the Federal Government had violated it and took upon itself more power than was intended. the fed were to have "finite and limited" powers and the SOVEREIGN states were to have "numerous and infinite powers"....the whole thing is tossed on its head and obviously the word "sovereign" like the word "liberty" doesn't hold its true meaning anymore.

Originally Posted by fj45lvr

Well I would hardly call wanting to actually live by the Constitution as "anarchy". You do realize that Thomas Jefferson before his death was upset that the Federal Government had violated it and took upon itself more power than was intended.

Libertarians cherry pick the constitution. Some of it is in line with libertarian philosophy, and others are not. Specifically what the document says reguarding tariffs, and how the founders carried out that policy. Like I said, they were economic nationalists. Also, the founders would be spinning in their graves at the massive Third World invasion that we are enduring. Thomas Jefferson warned of the perils of massive immigration. The libertarian views of immigration are to put it straightforwardly, asinine.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by fj45lvr

Well I would hardly call wanting to actually live by the Constitution as "anarchy". You do realize that Thomas Jefferson before his death was upset that the Federal Government had violated it and took upon itself more power than was intended.

The libertarian views of immigration are to put it straightforwardly, asinine.

Bear: you need to state "some Libertarians"....this is a primary reason for instance (immigration) as well as ABORTION that many of the "official" Libertarian Party are down on Paul and some of his peers because there are divergent views on this....coincidentally this is what the REPUBLICAN party is facing in that the party used to believe in limited and small government but NOT ANYMORE as well as the immigration and abortion too....obviously some of the GOP are equally guilty (actually more so because they had the POWER but chose the "WRONG").

So I guess we are both disgusted with "SOME" libertarians and "some" GOP (in fact the MAJORITY of both) as the "right thinking" and patriotic ones for our sovereignty and the proper constitutional seperation of powers are a small minority.

In fact I will go so far to state that the MASSIVE government that has been created that consumes our income has been created in a LARGE part by the GOP (not the Libertarian minded or "party") because these people IGNORE our Constitution in the limitation of the Federal Powers (and if anyone is in disagreement just look at the eighteenth and 21st ammendment for example of what is intended). Today we see the suspension of habeus corpus, warrantless searches, and we wonder what the socialists (beyond these fake conservatives of GOP) will do to further destroy our law as they take control of all branches of government. I will concede that the judiciary has seen the carnage and chose to urinate on it....there are particular decisions that are particularly agregious (recently on imminent domain, and earlier one that gets me is their expansive view of "commerce" convicting a farmer for growing whatever wheat he wanted to use on his own farm!!! (that particular case alone is the unraveling of the Republic, freedom and liberty and our very backbone if people paid attention).

Labels don't mean a hill of beans!!! It's actions that matter. Everyone knows people that "call" themselves things that they have no business claiming for themselves (just like most politicians should refer to themselves as liars and crooks but you never he them refer to themselves properly).

Pass the word "McCain is just another Democrat."

Originally Posted by GOrwell

Originally Posted by Saki

Originally Posted by usanevada

Originally Posted by butterbean

Originally Posted by Saki

And now we await the McCain endorsement.

Saki- THINK POSITIVE. DON'T THINK McCAIN.

Doesn't matter ,

Lots of Fred people will never go with amnesty McCain

I agree with that. I'm just not looking forward to the media crowing about McCain having one more feather in his cap. Huckster needs to do terrible in Florida for us to possibly get him out before Super Tuesday, but I bet he'll start hitting the South as hard as possible and pick up support there. Romney has been setting up a sizeable operation in Louisiana.

I'm ready for a anti-McCain campaign. We need to do something to counter the manipulations of the MSM. Rush, Scarborough and Hannity have tried to do that to some extent, but it's not enough.

huckabee already pulled out of florida... he is running low on funds and wants to concentrate on super tuesday...