See a letter I rec'd from Rep. Hunter re NAFTA posted here:Quote:
Originally Posted by nntrixie
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-45290-dunc ... fta+letter
Printable View
See a letter I rec'd from Rep. Hunter re NAFTA posted here:Quote:
Originally Posted by nntrixie
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-45290-dunc ... fta+letter
Thanks, jean I appreciate that.
I am still a Ron Paul person, but I certainly wouldn't have to hold my nose to vote for Hunter.
I do appreciate the information.
I just looked at an updated list of the CFR and neither one are on the list of members....thats good.
I read all the previous posts in this thread and might I say you are a well informed, intelligent group of people! I am honored to be among you still!
I donated to Tom Tancredo's campaign twice, for a whopping $25 total. I also donated to Ron Paul's campaign, for a whopping total of $12. As you can see, I had limited resources to work with, but that is neither here nor there.
I am terrified to vote for ANYONE in the upcoming election. I don't trust a single one of them.
I was very much FOR Tancredo, until his recent vote to expand NAFTA in the Peru agreement. YIKES!!
I have read a lot about Ron Paul, and while he seems like a great pick on the surface, I have issues with him stances on several items, although i agree wholeheartedly on some others.
When I took an online "who's my best candidate" quiz, my results said that my stances most closely match with Duncan Hunter, who I hadn't even heard of at the time (almost a yr ago).
I'll vote for Rudy McRomney when my poop turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbert. AKA never and a day.
If Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul are not viable options, I will write in the person I think is most suitable for the presidency (William, Lou Dobbs, Dan Smeriglio ... ). I simply cannot join in on a 3rd party candidate who is as useless as the top tiers. That's a lot of work for the same old results.
I think supporting and promoting our issues is a lot more important-in the long run, and even in the short term with respect to this presidential campaign-than supporting or opposing one particular candidate. We should be able to highlight these issues of concern even if someone who is adversarial to our interests is nominated, so that when we apply pressure to him/her we have the backing of the American public. The issues of our broken borders and immigration process are going to last far longer than this campaign will.
That's a good point, Shapka.
DUNCAN HUNTER IS THE MAN!!
Don't get me wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
I think we should do everything in our capacity to help elect pro-American, anti-illegal, patriotic politicians, especially on a national level.
However, I don't think we should make that our only focus.
When the Democrats retook Congress I was dead-certain that they would be able to ram amnesty down our throats. The fact that they weren't able to do that proves how potent a force this movement is. The same principle applies on a local level. I can count on one hand the number of elected officials from The City who are not open borders, pro-illegal hacks, i.e. Congressman Vito Fossella, Senator Frank Padavan, Senator Marty Golden, and maybe one or two others. However, that hasn't stopped groups like NY ICE, 9/11 FSA and Citizens for a Secure Driver's License from exerting enormous pressure on our incompetent elected officials, e.g. Bloomberg, Spitzer, among others.
The point is to marshal our resources in support of ideas, not just candidates.
Yes, I agree. The thing is that no matter how much we may like a particular candidate, or their electability, we need to stay strong on our principals. I do not want the movement to be comprimised. That is the main reason why I have been consistently critical of Paul. Not because I am shilling for Tancredo, but because I want the facts to be laid out about who these candidates are as it realates to our movement and ideals. It seems that some will defend votes and opinions about certain candidates no matter what. That is not what this movement is about. That is what partisans do. When Tancredo voted for the Peru Trade deal I was one of the first to denounce his vote. I would like to see more of that coming from the Paul supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shapka
Ron Paul has made mistakes. No question about it. He's voted many times differently then many others or myself would have liked. Like you stated, he's not perfect.
However aside from Hunter/Tancredo, he is the only other candidate who is talking strong about illegal immigration (and has for many years). You can be sure that he would put pressure on congress to help pass laws to resolve the issue and he would certainly put much more power to enforce immigration laws back into the hands of the states.
Some issues such as H1-B visa's allowances and such, are seemingly minor in the overall scope of things and as a form of legal immigration they are far back on my "list" of immigration priorities.
I was very worried early in this election cycle that no viable candidate would arise that would actual protect our nations borders, but a fairly large and diverse movement has sprung up around Paul and he's managed to make some significant movement upward in the polls.
I understand voting on principle, I'll be doing it no matter what since I full-heartedly support Ron Paul and he's my candidate of choice. However in this case Ron Paul is polling around 8% in the early Primary States whereas Hunter is around 3% perhaps.
So while you might support Hunter more, Paul has a much more viable shot at capturing the nomination and vastly increasing our border/immigration enforcement. Paul's raised over $18 Million this quarter and has the cash to compete this election cycle.
I like the fact we have a couple good guys running for President, but when one of them has a far more viable shot at actually becoming the nominee it might be worth sacrificing a few ideals and throwing your support behind him.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is rarely good, but in this case I still support both of these guys immigration policies far more then any other candidate.
BearFlagRepublic wrote:
I agree, Bear. I refuse to hold the truth back simply because some don't want to hear it. To do so would be a huge disservice to those that really are interested in learing the facts about the candidates. Personally, I would hope everyone would desire to be as informed as possible on all of the candidates, not just the top tier candidate that is leading in the polls at the time. :wink:Quote:
Strange? I believe it is information sharing. In fact, I am sharing information from Ron Paul's own site. I have repeatedly linked to the man's site so people can get a better understanding of his views on trade. Don't you want to know where he stands trixie? Is it better to not know these things before voting for him? Isn't it better that you know?
I want to know all the stances on a candidate.
That statement of 'don't you want to know' is part of the problem. We can't attack each other and divide ourselves and hope to get someone in that will vote our way.
Nothing I said implied I didn't want to know. I just don't know and trade is not high on my list right now.
As I said, I have serious disagreements with Hunter on the war and foreign policy - but I'm not going to begin throwing silly statements, insults, and meaningless nitpicking around. The war and our foreign policy is a big thing with me. I have the feeling he is totally entrenched in his policies on that and nothing will change - until we are forced by circumstances.
These policies are already in place and have been - Hunter won't have to do anything differently to keep these things going that I truly think are wrong. So I guess I could begin making very inflamed remarks about him and the war, etc., but that won't help right now.
If we don't do something about illegal immigration, the war won't matter, trade won't matter, the IRS won't matter, and whether prostitutes voted for Ron Paul won't matter.
No candidate is going to be perfect - none.
I want to hear the views and I want to see facts about all candidates. What I don't want to hear is some off the wall statement that is just political speak. Just me, but I've had enough buzz words, 'talking points', political spin to last me another lifetime. We should be way past that.
If you have concerns, don't like the view of a candidate, state the reason, but don't come off with 'blame America' type thing. That's so counterproductive. Why do you think that phrase is thrown out there - so we, the people, won't question any policy of this government. They have, through that repeated mantra, made it seem as if they are America - and therefore if we question them, we are blaming America.
We need to move on from that - and from attacking and insulting each other.
A big problem, as I see it, with Duncan Hunter is that he would not do anything to help the monetary crisis. How will he help the devaluation of our dollar, and what will he do about the Federal Reserve? With a weak dollar and a weak economy, we are creating a situation in which employers will seek to hire illegal immigrants over Americans.
Ron Paul is just about the only politician who recognizes this. Does Duncan Hunter? What would he do about it? What would he do about the income tax?
Also, as far as Burma goes, I did answer that-- as it is, we don't trade with Burma, but we give them foreign aid (which is probably taken by their corrupt government anyway). They are poor and can't rebel against their terrible government, and will remain poor. If we opened as a market to them, they could become richer and better able to overthrow their government, along with becoming a new market for American goods where there wasn't one before. As it is, we're giving them money anyway in foreign aid and getting nothing back in return. They're probably getting little to show for it as well.
I must have missed the part about Burma -
Did you consider that an attack trixie? It was not meant as one, but if it came off that way, I appologize. This discussion started when Once-A-Democrat mentioned that more jobs would be moved to China under Paul's trade plan. A couple posters including yourself wanted us to "prove it," or know how that was so. So I began linking to Paul's site, and quoting from Paul on tariffs -- which would be eliminated while China is free to keep theirs, hence what we believe would send more jobs to China. When you responded that this method of posting was strange, I was confused because you yourself seemed interested in an explanation of the assertion laid out by Once-a-Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by nntrixie
Part of the problem in our communication is that some Paul supporters seem to believe that all Paul detractors believe that Paul is crazy, or a muslim lover and such. I have never said these things. Yes, some have siad them, but myself, Once-a-Democrat, or MW have never said them. Paul detractors are every bit as diverse as Paul followers. Just as some Paul followers are consiracy theorists, that does not mean that they all are. Same goes for Paul detractors. We do not all think that he is anti-American etc. I do not believe he is a "traitor," or a "Muslim lover" etc. I do not even support the war. I just believe that Paul is not strong enough for our movement on illegal immigration and trade.Quote:
As I said, I have serious disagreements with Hunter on the war and foreign policy - but I'm not going to begin throwing silly statements, insults, and meaningless nitpicking around.
I believe that what I have provided, and have always provided, are the facts about Ron Paul. This time I decided to go straight to the horses mouth so all could see what the Paul campaign officially put's on his web-site. Its not talking points. I quoted from several different articles on his trade link to his site, It is clear that Paul has clearly dilineated that he is not a "fair trader." In one of my quotes he clearly dinstances himself from fair traders, and is in favor of free trade and ending tariffs unilaterally. But I agree we should not be using talking points and spin. I do not believe that I do, nor do I believe that I ever have. Again, we need not lump all Paul detractors in the same category.Quote:
I want to hear the views and I want to see facts about all candidates. What I don't want to hear is some off the wall statement that is just political speak. Just me, but I've had enough buzz words, 'talking points', political spin to last me another lifetime. We should be way past that.
I agree. I hope that I have made the case that this is not what I am doing. I do not believe that MW or Once-a-Democrat does that either. I will not speak for everyone because, as you allude to, there are some people who do that. They do not speak for me, because I do not use terms like "blame America," or "Muslim lover." I do not even support this war. In fact, I never have. I hope that gives you and others a little bit of a different take of where I am coming from. I oppose this war and I oppose Ron Paul. Because the war is not the #1 issue for me, and this war actually has nothing to do with this site and our movement (but I'm sure some would disagree). I consider all of the issues, and then make my choice. Sure, I like what Paul has said about the war, but then he loses me when I hear him talk about illegal immigration (the main issue of this site) and trade (a related issue). Even though I disagree with Duncan on the war, he is almost perfect on trade and immigration.Quote:
We need to move on from that - and from attacking and insulting each other.
I weigh my top 3 issues (immmigration, trade, the war), factoring in how important each issue is, compare the candidates on these issues, and make the decision. For me Paul is basically 1 out of 3. And Duncan is 2 out of three. That is why I choose Duncan.
bearflag No apology necessary - but nice of you.
If someone says, 'don't you want to know the facts' - that really sounds to me like 'you don't want to know the facts'. Just misunderstanding.
Some very good points and nicely put. That's the way we should discuss and debate. That way we can discuss, debate, disagree - but remain together when it is necessary for us to do so.
The war is not #1 for me either, and I said that emphatically.
If we don't do something about illegal immigration, nothing else matters, because we won't be Americans in America for long.
But you will have to admit that there has been a barrage of odd, nitpicking posts about Ron Paul. He has been attacked regarding every thing in his agenda. Some of them so desparate it is strange. We haven't heard he kicks little dogs yet, but who knows.
I would be just as curious and maybe upset if suddenly people began posting time and time again with some pretty nonsensical things regarding Hunter or Tancredo.
My point was, if I want to be negative, so could I, concerning Hunter. I don't want to attempt to destroy the, perhaps, one other person who is on our side.
But as far as the war goes, most of the time, I'm not defending Paul's position - but stating my own - which I have held since the drumbeats began.
Before you change horses, go to the "Who Ya Gonna Vote For?" thread
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-94938.html
and actually spend some time researching the real views and positions of the candidates, especially on illegal immigration and homeland security.
All the links are there.
You might also want do it if you were riding another pony.
Tancredo always said what he believes. Remember, most of the others are POLITICIANS.
God bless Tom Tancredo!
The president does not set trade policys...congress does, remember they are the ones who just voted for the Peru agreement, they voted for Nafta, Cafta, if you want to change them work on your congressmen/women..throw them out of office, find out if your elected offical voted for the spending bill yesterday and see that they get voted out, the President has as much power as the people give him, we need to take that power back.
Immigration is the #1 issue as it will set the agenda as to where this country is going. NAU, open borders and free movement of people and goods.
Iraq is important because it is breaking this country, you and me, I ( only my opinion) I think it is time for Iraq to take over and fight for themselves, as evidently the rest of the world believes that also (hense Great Britain getting out) When are we going to stop being so arrogant to think the whole world is ours to run and tell other how to live.
This is exactly what is happening to us in our own country by globalist, and we don't like it, in fact we are fed up and down right sick of it. Who are these few to tell the Majority what we should accept for our country in the name of their idea of the world.
Economy is critical....again just look at the spending bill that passed the other day, I don't know about you but this kind of waste of my money is ticking me off, and this country needs big changes, our government is getting too big, there is way to much waste at our expense. We are suckers....who is talking about this?
Our constitutional rights are being trampled on, destroy our constitution and America will cease and desist to exist IMHO :lol:
sosad I am just as concerned about the war, etc.
Once again, though, if we don't do something about illegal immigration and do it soon, it won't matter. We will never again have a chance to make decisions or elect those who do.
The illegal movement is not a spontaneous thing. This didn't just mushroom out of the desire for a better life for these millions of people.
They have been quietly putting people in place in our local, state and federal government. They have been getting them hired into bureaucratic jobs that make real decisions in this country. Spanish speaking attorneys have opened offices all over this country - in many small towns.
It was a planned and orchestrated movement. One in which our government, both so called parties, on local, state level as well, took part.
By flooding this country with poor people and criminals, not Americans, they have diluted the power of the American citizens. They used these people in so many ways. It made corporations richer, it diminished our education system, it weakened our judicial system, it is breaking the American taxpayer, etc.
They played on the poverty - and greed of the illegals and on the greed of the American corporation and other business owners.
'Trixie" I couldn't agree with anyone more than I do you, as I said above it is the #1 issue, the others are extremely important but if this illegal immigration keeps on the course it is on, our country will be lost as we know it. The North American Union will destroy the middle class ,our culture will diminish, our towns and states will continue to erode and there will be no place left for us to move to get away from it. Our childrens futures will be lost.
BearFlagRepublic wrote:
Well, using your matrix, Bear, Hunter scores a perfect 3 out of 3 for me. I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Whether I agree with our reasoning for going into Iraq is not the issue, but now that we're there I strongly believe we need to finish what we started! Those that decry the loss of life in Iraq during the war haven't seen anything compared to what could, and probably would, happen if we were to withdrawal immediately. The insurgency uprising to regain control of Iraq would begin almost immediately, and without a doubt it would be extremely bloody. Furthermore, an immediate withdrawal would more than likely undermine the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made up to this point because I don't think the Iraqi military is ready to stand alone yet. Is the country ready to tell little Johnny's mom and dad that his sacrifice was for nothing? I honestly believe the light is becoming visible at the end of the tunnel. It's beyond me how anyone could support an immediate withdrawal (cut & run) policy at this point. You know things are improving in Iraq when the MSM has given up spinning the surge as a bad thing. :wink:Quote:
I weigh my top 3 issues (immmigration, trade, the war), factoring in how important each issue is, compare the candidates on these issues, and make the decision. For me Paul is basically 1 out of 3. And Duncan is 2 out of three. That is why I choose Duncan.
SOSADFORUS wrote:
You're exactly right! That is why we should be rallying behind Duncan Hunter for President!Quote:
Immigration is the #1 issue as it will set the agenda as to where this country is going. NAU, open borders and free movement of people and goods.
It has been proven time and time again that Tancredo and Hunter were the absolute best on the issues of immigration and border security. :wink:
mw
While I don't know that Ron Paul could withdraw us from the war immediately - I don't think it matters when we leave. There will be a bloodbath in that country. Unless we stay forever, it will happen.
We are here on this site because we are being invaded by millions of people from another country. They are being encouraged and protected by this President - both in practice and in his speeches. He wants them here, he wants them to have amnesty. He is doing everything he can to get more here and keep them here.
He wants the NAU, he has helped to outsource business. He made the speech that we had to give money to companies who work offshore 'so they can be competitve in the world market'?? He is giving this country away, selling it, allowing it to be invaded.
He is so wrong - so wrong on everything else - how can one not doubt his stand on the war. It defies logic to believe in his idea that we need to take over Iraq in order to make America free - while we know, can see, can feel, that he is selling this country out in every way he can.
How can anyone believe the mission of this war has anything to do with the safety or security of America. You can't give it away with one hand and claim you are fighting for it with the other.
MW, and that is your right.
Paul is 2 out of 3 for me as my view on the war differs from yours...but useing the term "cut and run" because my view is different than yours is no different than pro-illigals calling us racist, bigots or protectionist. I believe their are more people against the war than for it....
Here is how it stands, we all think the world of Tancredo and had hopes he could win, I said months ago he could not make it as he could not pull himself up off the bottom..... Tancedo drops out today.
Here again we have the same thing with Hunter, even if we don't agree with it or don't like it, it doesn't change a thing...We all here like Hunter...The facts are he can not pull himself off of the bottom.... On the other hand....
" Fact" We have a man that has a movement going in this country like none other, he is gaining momentum, he has raised 17 million dollars 5 in one day, he is managing to get himself in the MSM more often on shows such as Glenn Beck, Cavutto Blitzer etc. They are being forced to recognize him aleast more often.
He at least has a chance and if he does not get the nomination he can come back as an Independant and have another almost year to gain even more momentum.
nntrixie wrote:
I believe he has used the words "immediate withdrawal" on several occasions. Additionally, he has said, "we must get out now." Make no mistake about it, cut & run is the only way those phrases can be interpreted.Quote:
While I don't know that Ron Paul could withdraw us from the war immediately - I don't think it matters when we leave. There will be a bloodbath in that country. Unless we stay forever, it will happen.
If we actually accomplish our goal in Iraq, there will be no "bloodbath." Everything is dependent upon standing up a competent Iraqi Army that can protect the citizens of Iraq and protect an established government from insurgents. Regardless of what you think, it's achievable and I believe it is happening.
I would love to respond, however, I refuse to make the big turn necessary to do so because it would turn this thread into a war thread - and that's not what we're here to discuss. :wink:Quote:
He is so wrong - so wrong on everything else - how can one not doubt his stand on the war. It defies logic to believe in his idea that we need to take over Iraq in order to make America free - while we know, can see, can feel, that he is selling this country out in every way he can.
How can anyone believe the mission of this war has anything to do with the safety or security of America. You can't give it away with one hand and claim you are fighting for it with the other.
SOSADFORUS wrote:
Unfortunately money doesn't necessarily translate into votes. As for being invited to appear on shows such as Glenn Beck, Cavutto, etc. Hunter has been there, done that (he spent an hour with Beck just a week or two ago). Showing up on those shows also doesn't necessarily translate into support. Actually, have you considered the possibility that more appearances may lead to less support in the long run. It's a real possibility that some may have failed to consider.Quote:
" Fact" We have a man that has a movement going in this country like none other, he is gaining momentum, he has raised 17 million dollars 5 in one day, he is managing to get himself in the MSM more often on shows such as Glenn Beck, Cavutto Blitzer etc. They are being forced to recognize him aleast more often.
This comment doesn't wash, "They are being forced to recognize him aleast more often." Hunter's been on all those shows - how did he force them to recognize him? Of course I'll give credit to Paul for appearing on The View and Alex Jones Show because those are shows Hunter has yet to appear on. Something tells me he won't be invited either. :lol:
Hasn't Paul said he would not run as an Independent. If I'm not mistaken, he recently said he was 99.9% sure he would not run as Third Party candidate. Besides that, a Third Party candidate has virtually no chance of being elected. I'm sorry, but in reality the deck is only stacked for one elephant and one donkey (or jackass if you prefer). Is it right, of course not, but unfortunately it is what it is. :cry:Quote:
He at least has a chance and if he does not get the nomination he can come back as an Independant and have another almost year to gain even more momentum.
I believe he has used the words "immediate withdrawal" on several occasions. Additionally, he has said, "we must get out now." Make no mistake about it, cut & run is the only way those phrases can be interpreted.
If we actually accomplish our goal in Iraq, there will be no "bloodbath." Everything is dependent upon standing up a competent Iraqi Army that can protect the citizens of Iraq and protect an established government from insurgents. Regardless of what you think, it's achievable and I believe it is happening.
I would love to respond, however, I refuse to make the big turn necessary to do so because it would turn this thread into a war thread - and that's not what we're here to discuss.
Why denigrate Paul - and use the phrase 'cut and run' - the mantra of the administration and the war machine - yet won't explain how a President that is selling, giving away, and otherwise destroying this country right under our noses -o can be fighting a war to preserve our freedom.
What freedom?
You know I have asked that question many times and have never gotten an answer.
But you are right, it's not a war thread - and it's not about cutting and running.
[b]Very well put nntrixie. I agree with it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by nntrixie
We also have been duped by so-called "Americanized" hispanics who have taken sworn "oaths" in order to serve as public servants, only to have them serve the interests of other hispanics. LIARS AND TRAITORS.
We also have a HUGE portion of the media covered by hispanics. You don't see alot of Asian and European anchors or reporters on tv or in the newspapers. The vast majority are hispanics. FAIR AND BALANCED? NOT! :roll:
OK "MW" This money Paul has collected speaks loud and clear...Money deffinitly can mean votes especially where his money has come from, grass roots America, people sending all they can afford $25, $50 dallors a shot, that means alot of votes.
Nobody is asking you to give up or stop supporting your canidate please continues I respect your loyalty, tell everyone all the wonderful atributes of Hunter I agree he is a great guy, but please don't put down the only other candidate whom some of us have great hopes for...with any luck one of them will win and we can take back our country. :lol:
Taking our country back is something we all agree on!! :wink:
What exactly are we finishing over in Iraq by staying?Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
Didnt we go in to remove Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) from Saddam's possesion and overthrow saddam? We did overthrow Saddam and there were no WMDs - Iraq was not a threat to the soveriegnty of the U.S.
What else are we accomplishing - Peace in Iraq - what?
We are staying solely to save face - we are staying, wasting money, wasting lives in a war we cant afford that has no clear benefit to the citizens of the U.S.
I keep hearing "complete the mission", "finish the job", "we arnt quitters" What the hell does that mean - what do you hope to accomplish - and if you do even have a concrete goal, is it even realistic?
Think about it - lets swallow our pride, be smart, save lives, save this country from an economic crisis, protect the homeland AT HOME, and end this occupation of Iraq.
stealthwii
Those were my thoughts.
Just why are we there? Why are we staying?
I truly don't know why we are they or why we went in - Money of course. Money and power - but not sure how that works out.
[/b]
Just a point - most countries don't use their Army to keep their citizens in line. Those that do are referred to as military dictatorships, not republics or democracies.Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
We met the goals of the UN resolution (and i have BIG issues with marching in to protect the interests of the UN, but that's a different subject) and now it is time to go.
As Paul said, we need to give Iraq back to the people of Iraq.
There was an article a day or two ago, pointing out that the factions in Iraq all agree that our continued presence there is their biggest cause of conflict.
Paul should get the other leaders of the Middle East in a meeting, tell them we're leaving Iraq, and get them to help Iraq recover.
A few months ago, my husband had an occasion to talk with two young men back from Iraq.
Both of them said we were mostly fighting Iraqis who didn't want us there.
Now these were not young men who knew each other - it was separate times, separate towns.
I'm inclined to think that is true.
Whatever Al Queda presence there is probably there because of us. The Iraqis don't want us occupying their country. The rest of the ME don't want us occupying that country. Let's remove ourselves and let them sort it out.
True, but when I say NAFTA what is one of the first things that enters your mind? Is it BILL CLINTON? The president is very influential in trade policy, because he/she is the one who signs it into law. The president is a major player in trade policy, as when congress is negotiating they are trying to get something onto the presidents desk that he will actually sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS
When I hear the word NAFTA the first thing that comes to my mind is Americans are getting screwed.....Congress is responsible, if the president doesn't like it to bad, that is the object of checks and balances, it is one of the great things about this country, and congress should stand independant of the president, and do what is right for the people, throw out congress, they signed those trade deals that are screwing Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
I am sorry "Bear" but the President can only do what our congress will let him, when it comes to laws, trade deals and funding. We must put the responsibility where it lies.
We need to get back to those checks and balances, what we have now is a dictator and an congress with no backbone, my friend. :lol:
New user here, I hope you don't mind me chiming in.Quote:
Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic
I think Ron Paul's answer is confusing here because it is a question between personal Ideology and Constitutional authority.
Ron Paul considers the Income tax unconstitutional and immoral. "It is not ok to steal something from your neighbor, but if the government does it for you, then it is ok?" So one of his top priorities is to eliminate the Income Tax.
Tariff's on the other hand ARE Constitutional. So, even though he is an avid "free trader" ideologically, he recognizes that if our government needs to acquire funds in order to operate, tariffs would be an acceptable method, as they are constitutional and not immoral or as immoral.
Also, when considering Ron Paul's ideology in regards to "Free Trade", you have to take into account his entire monetary policy beliefs. Our Federal Reserve system and "fiat money" are responsible for our job loss, not free trade. It is easier and cheaper for us to "print money" out of thin air and spend it than it is to actually produce goods to sell to other countries. This works fine as long as other countries are willing to accept this money. (This is coming to an end quickly)
With a monetary system where the dollars are backed by a hard asset, (such as the gold standard). You don't have trade deficits. If you keep spending money without making any money you go bankrupt and can't buy anymore goods. So, a hard-asset based currency requires you (the U.S.) to be productive and export, if you are going to import.
Note: he has not proposed going back to the gold standard immediately. He wants to legalize competing currencies (backed by gold and silver). Personally: I think he wants to use this method so that people quickly learn the true level of inflation.
Welcome to ALIPAC!!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by specsaregood
Good post!
WELCOME TO ALIPAC "specsaregood" thank you for posting and I hope you stay around and get involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by specsaregood
I agree with you on Pauls trade....as I said above when it comes down to it our trade problems all go back to the congress.
You are so right about the dollar but I don't think alot of people realize how much trouble this country is in because of the printing of money without being backed by gold or silver. Inflation will be a hard lesson to learn but then Depression isn't going to be pretty either. :lol:
Thank you for the warm welcome.
I happened to read "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity" by Ron Paul last week. It is 52 pages of "pure gold", pardon the pun. It really explains the core basis for his belief structure and details through history how monetary policy and fiat money has been the instrument of tyranny. Once you understand his thoughts on that, every thing else he does just makes sense.
Here is a little tidbit from the book(really more of a pamphlet).
"The monetary reforms drawn up at Bretton Woods, NH, in July 1944 were supposed to be permanent. The agreement lasted 27 years. Harry Dexter White, Director of Monetary Research for the Treasure was the U.S. Representative. (Mr. White was later identified as a high-level fellow traveler of the Communist Party.)"
Liberty and Freedom cannot exist for long without "honest money".
8O I will have to find that book so I can read it...thanksQuote:
Originally Posted by specsaregood
a couple of things i wanted to point out, in case they havent already been.
Dr. Paul changed his position on the fence because it was pointed out that much of the land slated to be built on would be taken by eminent domain. So while he doesn't support the fence, it's not necessarily spaeking to his commitment on illegal immigration.
As for tarrifs, he supports a unified tarrif system, when he says "fair" he means that the tarrifs are applied abroad the entire spectrum as opposed to subvening one industry over the other. agree or disagree i just wanted to firm up his position on those issues.