Thread: Great News! Paul, Tancredo, Hunter Invited To S.C. Debate!

Ron Paul has my vote!

Kat man do.

jp_48504 wrote:

Ron Paul has my vote!

And Duncan Hunter mine! However, I'll be rooting on all three of "our" candidates.

Originally Posted by MW

jp_48504 wrote:

Ron Paul has my vote!

And Duncan Hunter mine! However, I'll be rooting on all three of "our" candidates.

I still love Tancredo but honestly, if any of these three guys make it, I will be a satisfied voter for a change!
I didn't know much about Ron Paul before last night but I llike his message.
Hunter has a toughness I think we need right now too and a really good message. I think more Americans would be working if he were in office.
Tancredo has my heart. I think he clearly loves this country and will protect her.

Originally Posted by MW

jp_48504 wrote:

Ron Paul has my vote!

And Duncan Hunter mine! However, I'll be rooting on all three of "our" candidates.

Duncan Hunter lost HUGE points with me last night when he professed to be a "compassionate conservative" in the mold of George Bush. More RINOs we do not need. I guess I should have expected that something like this would eventually come from the mouth of ANY candidate hailing from the Granola state.

Originally Posted by jp_48504

Ron Paul has my vote!

me too

Way to early for me but am leaning towards Tancredo, have to hear Hunter and Paul more, I think Tancredo is more firm in his beliefs and not affraid to speak out about them, I know the other two have said they don't believe in amnesty but I think they avoid the issue to much to be comfortable with them yet. Time will tell!!

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Way to early for me but am leaning towards Tancredo, have to hear Hunter and Paul more, I think Tancredo is more firm in his beliefs and not affraid to speak out about them, I know the other two have said they don't believe in amnesty but I think they avoid the issue to much to be comfortable with them yet. Time will tell!!

I think that all three are equally firm in their opposition to amnesty. As I have previously stated, my primary support for Paul is based on his stances on all the other issues. The only issue on which he and I really diagree is Iraq, but that's because my stance is based in pragmatism rather than principle. It's one of the few issues that I think represent a situation in which we have gotten ourselves into such a pickle (not directly because of the Iraq invasion, but because of former foreign policy goals that led us into life and death conflict with a rabidly devoted ideology) that deferrence to sound principle must be temporarily set aside in the interest of immediate security.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Way to early for me but am leaning towards Tancredo, have to hear Hunter and Paul more, I think Tancredo is more firm in his beliefs and not affraid to speak out about them, I know the other two have said they don't believe in amnesty but I think they avoid the issue to much to be comfortable with them yet. Time will tell!!

I think that all three are equally firm in their opposition to amnesty. As I have previously stated, my primary support for Paul is based on his stances on all the other issues. The only issue on which he and I really diagree is Iraq, but that's because my stance is based in pragmatism rather than principle. It's one of the few issues that I think represent a situation in which we have gotten ourselves into such a pickle (not directly because of the Iraq invasion, but because of former foreign policy goals that led us into life and death conflict with a rabidly devoted ideology) that deferrence to sound principle must be temporarily set aside in the interest of immediate security.

I have only seen Paul a couple of times and not long enough get the real sense of the person he is or how he stands on alot of issues, I do like the way he talks about how our government is two big and in our business two much, those kind of issues, but on illegal immigration I have never heard him touch on all the issues that deal with illegal immigration.

Now Hunter, I like him on Iraq, I know what his web page says on illigal immigration, but every time I have heard him talk he only talks about the fence in San Diego, we all know about the fence, I want to hear him in public speak of the 20 million people here and it seems to me he avoids it, when people avoid a certain subject I worry. Then again it is early and most of what I have heard is in sound bites, and 30 seconds or 1 minute is not enough time for someone to give a full opinion on anything.Maybe he has spoke of the 20 million in public at length but if he did I missed it'

Did you notice last night how they all confirmed their stand on the National ID, It's for people other than citizens, I just could not help but laugh, they must be hearing alot from the citizens about it.

CG wrote:

Duncan Hunter lost HUGE points with me last night when he professed to be a "compassionate conservative" in the mold of George Bush.

Duncan Hunter is no George Bush.

I don't remember what question brought that response forth, but I do remember Hunter stumbling over his response. I'm not real concerned with that specific remark because I've checked his voting record out from top to bottom and I think it speaks a lot more about the man than one 30 second response to a question. Furthermore, he may not be as compassionate as he seems to think because he certainly isn't showing much compassion for illegal immigrants!

Well, I guess he is compassionate in regards to wanting what's best for Americans and America. After all, he does want to bring our manufacturing jobs back home, free Ramos and Compeon, protect us with a secure border fence, enforce our immigration laws, restrict U.S. funding to the UN, make sure we keep our right to bear arms (rated an A+ with NRA), voted against NAFTA and CAFTA, etc., etc. Yeah, I guess he is a little compassionate where Americans and America is concerned, but like I said - he's no Bush.