Thread: Don't Believe The Ron Paul Hype

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

(4) Give me an example of how he’s using the US constitution to stop Illegal immigration and not just saying he is using the constitution.

That's what I would like to see - if the word constiution is used better back in up with exactly where in the consitution.

He can’t... Paul says it all the time
When I’m president ill use the constitution to change this… and ill follow the constitution to fix that…. I my self, want change and a lot of it. I truly believe so does Paul. I just want to see what he has done so far to change. The next president no mater who it is will have to follow the old so called constitutional ways very closely America will make him.

Lets add a (5) to this
Think about this and lets see if its true and false and add a why to it.
Bet the dollar goes up when Bush goes out.
Bet oil comes down when Cheney leaves with him.

Originally Posted by MW

Chloe24 wrote:

This is getting very tiresome and personally I'm not enjoying myself here anymore. It's one thing to have disagreements and opinions, but the attacks and attempts to smear Ron Paul and his supporters is no different than what the Globalist Media is doing.

The final straw was the article - http://www.therant.us/staff/williams/09052007.htm , MW posted in another thread that basically
calls ALL Ron Paul supporters anti-semitic, and implies we are extremists.

You posted that article for a reason MW. Is that how you truly feel about the Paul supporters on this board?

What's getting "tiresome" to me is the attitude that every article linked that mentions Ron Paul or his supporters is a personal attack on the individual reading it. Newsflash, we're not writing these articles folks. I had absolutely zero input into the writing of the article. To answer your question, no I don't agree with everything written in the article. I posted it because I thought it had an interesting twist to what some Paul fans here on ALIPAC are calling neo-cons. I didn't post it because of anything that was implied concerning Paul supporters. If I thought all Paul supporters were anti-semitic or extremists, I'd say so. Not once have you ever witnessed me writing such a thing. Nope, I didn't even join NoAmnasty's thread on the topic a several days ago. If you've got a lot of free time on your hands I encourage you to research my old posts.

I will say this regarding a couple Paul supporters here on ALIPAC, there ESP abilities are uncanny. This is twice today that a Paul supporter has presumed to know what I'm thinking.

Seriously, I think some folks are getting a little over sensitive regarding articles they find fault with. Like I said previously, we're not writing these articles, and they're certainly not personal. Moreover, I seldom find a controversial article that I agree with 100%. Let this be the lesson for the day: The posting of an article doesn't necessarily mean the poster agrees 100% with its content. Personally, I think it's wrong for the reader to assume such. Please don't shoot the messenger.

Once again, you didn't read my post carefully. I never said that those were your words nor do I claim to be a mind reader. However, consider the tone of the article. It was extremely inflammable. Yeah, I do take it PERSONALLY when myself, friends and family are lumped in with a bunch of extremists and racists for being supporters of Ron Paul. Come on MW. As if the Tancredo and Hunter supporters here wouldn't have a similar reaction -or supporters of ANY candidate for that matter.

If anything, YOU are under the assumption that the rest of us are mind readers, when you don't fully explain your reasoning behind posting such an inflammatory article. If your point of posting the article was about the terminology of the word "neo-con", then you should have stated so, given the tone of that piece. I'm not saying that people have to do this with every article, but if you're going to post something that attacks the character of people without justification, than you ought to at least state your reasoning behind it. Otherwise there is going to be misunderstandings. Maybe this was a good lesson for all of us here.

There is a reason the media is against him, the socalled two parties are against him -

Why?

I have seen almost as many attacks against Ron Paul as I have Mrs. Clinton - that does give me pause.

It also makes me think we are loosing this thing. Personally, I am not convinced about any of the three - but I think if we get this nasty, muckraking, this early in the game, it says one thing to me.

We will lose - we will lose.

Whether you like Ron Paul the best or not - if we splinter and get so angry with each other, we can't come together - our choice will be made for us - Guiliani or Clinton.

Is that what we want? - Because that's exactly what we are going to get.

We all may have to hold our noses and vote for one of the three that perhaps isn't perfect for us - or we can splinter and put either of the two 'annointed' ones in office.

Chloe24 wrote:

If anything, YOU are under the assumption that the rest of us are mind readers, when you don't fully explain your reasoning behind posting such an inflammatory article.

Perhaps you shouldn't have jumped to a conclusion without asking me what the purpose was behind my post. If there was confusion regarding my intent, wouldn't it have been much easier just to inquire as to my purpose for posting the article? The street runs both ways.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

There is a reason the media is against him, the socalled two parties are against him -

Why?

I have seen almost as many attacks against Ron Paul as I have Mrs. Clinton - that does give me pause.

It also makes me think we are loosing this thing. Personally, I am not convinced about any of the three - but I think if we get this nasty, muckraking, this early in the game, it says one thing to me.

We will lose - we will lose.

Whether you like Ron Paul the best or not - if we splinter and get so angry with each other, we can't come together - our choice will be made for us - Guiliani or Clinton.

Is that what we want? - Because that's exactly what we are going to get.

We all may have to hold our noses and vote for one of the three that perhaps isn't perfect for us - or we can splinter and put either of the two 'annointed' ones in office.

exactly. I have been playing this tune for about 2 months here. we have those who support Tancredo/Hunter throwing, always, the first barbs - trying to marginalize Ron Paul. I do NOT get this logic, because many of these same persons have said "I don't think so and so can win", talking about their candidates... SO, they try to destroy the ONLY CHOICE that is left that CAN WIN!!!! This is EXACTLY what the elites want. The want the "business as usual politicians" to win.

IT LACKS COMMON SENSE. While people here are trying to win an extra few votes their way, they are letting Tax Hike Mike move forward, they are letting Romney move up.. etc.. I do NOT understand this and it is wholly unwise.

We are all defending and cutting down the ONLY THREE CANDIDATES THAT WILLL SAVE US FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION!! For goodness sakes! These are the only three that will do anything about the illegal immigration!!!! WHAT IS GOING ON! YOU WANT TO LOSE THIS COUNTRY TO SPECIAL INTERESTS?

It makes NO sense to me. And it terms of tactics, it doesn't make sense either.

nntrixie wrote:

I have seen almost as many attacks against Ron Paul as I have Mrs. Clinton - that does give me pause.

It should give you pause. Have you considered the possibility that some of us are unable to reconcile our difference with Paul in regards to his voting record on immigration and national/border security. I have other issues with him too, however, all the ALIPAC members that don't support Paul may not share my views on those specific issues.

For goodness sake, the man has voted for amnesty in the past, and I've never heard him say he supports the deportation of the millions of illegals currently residing in the U.S. Has anyone heard him say that? Hunter and Tancredo have said that. Actually, can anyone tell me one thing Paul has personally accomplished to reduce illegal immigration? Heck, I don't even think he is interested in toughening employer sanctions against those who hire illegals. He has voted against a workplace verification program. Not only that, to my knowledge he has not signed on as a cosponsor to the SAVE Act which would require employers to verify the legal status of employees. There's much, much more, however, I'm not in the mood to beat a dead horse.

My point is, there are those of us that think Ron Paul would be a disaster as President of the United States and Commande-In-Chief.

Do we know why he voted against those things?

I mean what else was in the bill?

Personally, I am leery of the SAVE act. I think we have plenty of laws on the books already. We have laws that have not been used, so they don't know if they will work or not.

When we allow them to come together and make up some new bill, we are allowing pro-illegals to once again open the door for amnesty by degrees and that's what I am afraid they are thinking.

Some of these people in WAshington are not our friends, they have put on the robes of immigration enforcement just lately, but they can shed those robes just as quickly.

Many who were in Washington at the time, voted for the amnesty - evidently. Heck, even though I thought it wasn't what should have been done, I thought it would be OK - but it was promised there would be employer sanctions, ability to verify, strengthened border security - and all that jazz. We were led to believe that illegal immigration would not be tolerated in the future.

Whether those things made it into the bill or not - I don't know. But if they did, why are the people in Washington trying to pass another bill that says the same thing?

I am also leery of all the politicians that are suddenly waving 'border security' and 'build a fence' to the exclusion of anything else.

How's the employer verification law working? Have we seen millions out of work, yet? Could it have been a sham that congress knew wouldn't work and therefore shouldn't have been passed?

From what I know about the SAVE act it updates the electronic verification process -- giving employers fewer excuses. It attempts to close loop-holes in the process, which to my knowledge are huge thanx to the 86 amnesty bill. I honestly do not believe that Ron Paul wants to punish employers for hiring illegals. He does not list it in his 6 point plan on immigration. Whenever he talks about immigration he NEVER includes employer sanctions, but often includes a guest worker plan. He has voted against employer verification in the past. According to the Federal Observer, his "point person" on immigration has confirmed that he does not believe in employer sanctions.

If some disagree with me, fine. But be aware that the above is based on verifiable research. It is a conclusion I have come to after a comprehensive analysis of Pauls voting record, a series of quotes directly from Paul, analysis of his official web-site's position, and articles about the tiopic. I am not smearing Paul nor his supporters. And I expect the same in return. If I am wrong about Paul and employer sanctions, please point me to the evidence that he supports it. If we do not need employer sanctions please explain to all of us why we do not need them.

Originally Posted by MW

Chloe24 wrote:

If anything, YOU are under the assumption that the rest of us are mind readers, when you don't fully explain your reasoning behind posting such an inflammatory article.

Perhaps you shouldn't have jumped to a conclusion without asking me what the purpose was behind my post. If there was confusion regarding my intent, wouldn't it have been much easier just to inquire as to my purpose for posting the article? The street runs both ways.

I believe I did ask you - "Is that how you truly feel about the Paul supporters on this board?"

MW, we're just going to go in circles here without accomplishing anything. Obviously we see things differently. Let's call it a day. I'm done for tonight. Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Originally Posted by nntrixie

There is a reason the media is against him, the socalled two parties are against him -

Why?

I have seen almost as many attacks against Ron Paul as I have Mrs. Clinton - that does give me pause.

It also makes me think we are loosing this thing. Personally, I am not convinced about any of the three - but I think if we get this nasty, muckraking, this early in the game, it says one thing to me.

We will lose - we will lose.

Whether you like Ron Paul the best or not - if we splinter and get so angry with each other, we can't come together - our choice will be made for us - Guiliani or Clinton.

Is that what we want? - Because that's exactly what we are going to get.

We all may have to hold our noses and vote for one of the three that perhaps isn't perfect for us - or we can splinter and put either of the two 'annointed' ones in office.

You hit the nail right on the head! Wake up people.