Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

That's right guys, convince everyone to vote for the CFR candidate AGAIN... Y'all know where that's gonna lead, but you keep it up anyway.

How much money is enough for you to want to sell out American sovereignty? Are you getting 6 figures?

You make me SICK!!!

Yes, I do want to know.

But you do have to admit that there is a whole lot of time spent chopping, hacking, bashing this man and I don't understand it.

I mean we have heard the Muslims love him, he's the Muslims' friend, the Mexicans love him - that's silliness - just silliness.

So how do the other candidates differ?

I don't know a lot about trade - I do know what we are doing is suicidal - that should be evident to anyone.

But he is good on immigration, his foreign policy is something that I have felt for years, his states' rights would be the best thing to happen to America domestically in decades - so I'll read on his trade - but he's got a pretty good record with me already.

But again, if you don't like his ideas for trade, how do his competitors stand on the issue?

I am not going to sit around and rip the only other candidate, assuming Tancredo is quitting, because one of the two are the only choices.

Romney just seems to be part of the network and will simply continue moving the agenda along.

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

He also said that unfair trade has to stop (example) we pay 25% China pays 2% .

.

Where was this said?

He spent a whole hour on Glenn beck last night, we announced it yesterday, it is a shame so many of you missed it as it was so refreshing to hear someones view in something more than 1 minute sound bites, and Glenn was very agreeable with Pauls views even he said he was surprised how he agreed on so much with Paul.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 7, 2001

The Case Against the Income Tax


Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen's hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.

Yet don't we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.

The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.

America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced "The Liberty Amendment," legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don't believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=199

I am as fed up with the wastfull spending of my tax money as I am of illegal immigrants.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS

Statement on Immigration Agreement

I remain very skeptical about the idea of so-called comprehensive immigration reform and the Senate compromise now being discussed. I will oppose any legislation that in any way, shape, or form grants amnesty to the millions of people who are in this country illegally. I have advocated that we should tighten citizenship requirements, and I still believe that. Moreover, the argument that we need to start a guest worker program is simply a shell game, we already have a generous guest worker program that the American people support. Support for such a program should not be used as a back door to amnesty for illegals.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=521

OK folks, lets all gather ourselves, and talk policy for our 08 strategy. I like everyone in this thread, so we need not get upset with each other. It is important who we decide to promote for 08, who's interests and policies coincide with our movement, which is why I have shared the info on Paul that I have for the past I don't know how many months.

It looks like Tom will pull out tomorrow, which means I am in serious need of a candidate switch and a new avatar. So, lets talk about our options........

While we are on the issue of trade, lets start there. As I have tried to demonstrate, Paul believes in unilateral elimination of protective tariffs. This is diametrically opposed to the trade policy of Duncan Hunter. Hunter believes in a "mirror trade policy." That is, if a nation wants to put up a 25% tariff on our goods, we will respond with a 25% tariff on theirs. This is a big difference on policy and I support Duncan's proposal, as well as his immigration views over Ron Paul's.

If Tom does indeed pull out tomorrow, I am throwing all of my support behind Duncan Hunter.

Let's discuss.........

I can vote for Hunter, although I have some disagreements with his stance on some things.

How did he stand on NAFTA, CAFTA, etc?

"Bear" i agree on Hunters tariffs and if you go for Hunter I think you picked a great canidate

We are all not going to back the same person as our prioritys are different, but we need to at least support the bottom two so one of the top 5 traitors and they are, don't get in office...now out of the top 5 if it comes down to we HAVE to make a choice between any amnesty giving Demacrat and one of the top 5 I think Romney is the best.

But we need to point out the good points in Hunter and Paul as there is no way we will agree 100% with any one canidate, it won't happen, we don't even agree with our spouses 100% of the time

sosad I agree with you. Right now, if TAncredo is gone, we have 2 candidates. We will need to come together at some point -

Originally Posted by nntrixie

sosad I agree with you. Right now, if TAncredo is gone, we have 2 candidates. We will need to come together at some point -

I so agrreeee!!! Bashing the only 2 choices we have at the moment is not good, it will only send people to one of the top 5.

We may have an independant later on but for the primary we have Hunter and Paul and I like both of them. They really are great guys and true patriots I think.

We have to get away from the same old lieing politicans and those are the ones being pushed by MSM.