Thread: USA Today : Full Page Ad - Ron Paul Supporter did it!

Originally Posted by MW

You don't consider it a little disturbing that Ron Paul is only 4 votes out of the lead in Mexico? Other than Mexico, most countries could care less about our illegal immigration problems or weak border security. Furthermore, I would suggest that most folks in Mexico prefer open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants. I find the voting pattern extremely odd, ESPECIALLY WITH PAUL AND OBAMA FINISHING #1 & #2 IN MOST OF THE POLLS. Does this mean most foreign citizens consider Obama and Paul similar in political ideology?

Honestly, I seriously doubt foreign citizens are interested in what is best for America.

I think Mexicans are voting for Dr. Paul based on his stand re: NAFTA. I would think the amnesty pushers are the ones who've put Barack Obama on top of the Dem field.

It's really all in the way that you look at it. You can't know the minds of those who voted unless you ask them, and I don't think that is possible.

I have to agree with BN though, that it seems you look for negative things to associate with Dr. Paul, whether they be factual or merely opinion. IMHO, of course.

Originally Posted by MW

BrightNail wrote:

Stop it already, you are getting desperate and it is getting embarrassing.

Actually, I think it's you that is embarrasing yourself with the continuous personal attacks.

If you really think the poll is valid, than I brought up some points worth considering.

www.whowouldtheworldelect.com

Edited by me to correct a spelling error.

That's a pretty cool site. Its interesting to see where other nation's heads are at. I was a little disappointed that Tom didn't do well, anywhere.......I was hoping Europe would come out in support of Tom considering the problems with immigration they are having.

There were a few surprises......Paul actually is tied for first in Israel, somehow GIULIANI is tied for first in IRAN and Kucinich (strong opponent of free trade) handily won China. As far as Paul's popularity in Mexico, I don't believe MW is saying that the Mexicans think Paul will grant amnesty or anything......I think it is that many people -- especially foreigners -- do not know or understand exactly where Paul comes down on immigration. For instance, there is no way in hell that Tancredo could be popular in Mexico, or Buchanan when he ran. Anti-American sentiment is huge in Mexico. Paul and Obama are popular there, for the same reasons they are popular world-wide.....Two words.....Iraq War. That explains this entire poll.

First off,

I DID NOT POST THE POLL.

THIS Thread is about The AD.

SECOND, This is "just" a POLL. There are thousands of them on the net.

THIRD, For anybody here to make assumptions on WHY someone in another country votes, is absolutely ridiculous. I am NOT sure you all know this, but these could be AMERICANS living abroad!!! The votes are tallied based on IP location.

I find it VERY VERY TELLING, that YOU MW - come in and constantly raise negativity and then play the victim. Grow up. You sling mud, constantly, and when someone calls you out on your childish behaviour you play the victim. So what is the solution. Constantly getting into flame wars with you when there is not chance of any absolution, or call you on your V****V?
After countering your arguments months ago, over and over and over - I realized you ain't one for discussion. You have an opinion and that ain't gonna change and you have made it a mission to try a dissuade everyone else to your position. What I find very scary -- you trying to chase them right into the arms of the CFR open border types. Very telling.

I am sorry that your Hunter threads get minimal attention and frankly nobody is interesed. Though I do read them when I have have insomnia, puts me right to sleep.

Sure, I can CONCEED that this might be an "iraq" poll -- ala, end the war. If that was the case - Ron would win hands down because Obama WILL NOT end the war, Ron will. Also, - OTHER candidates will also end the war, but this poll does not reflect that -- so, we can't make ANY assumptions on the wisdom on these votes. Someone just pointed it out as an interesting thing. Nothing more, except in MW's mind.

Also, tancredo and hunter could not win in mexico or any other place because between them they don't have enough votes to muster any opposition. What I find interesting is that Ron Paul emphatically said in debates and has written articles - many infact, and is rated a B+ by numbersUSA, WOULD NOT GRANT AMNESTY. This is a given, it is know.
In fact, ending ALL welfare and ALL government subsidies is not a lure for illegals, I would think.

SO, yes.. I believe bearflag is right -- this is a FOREIGN POLICY/IRAQ issue.
"some" here might of found this out with a little investigation.


**********

BUT AGAIN, these votes 'could' be from AMERICANS living Abroad.

And as BeafFlagRepublic noted, Ron is ahead in Israel - explain that MW. Oh wait, you can't. (unless you can tie that in with smuggled mexicans illegals living there. )

********
LETS STAY ON POINT OF THIS THREAD, THE ADS.

Originally Posted by MW

Hmmm.........I guess you edited your post while I was preparing a response.

Your tactic in attempting to gather allies to crush the evil MW is interesting. No one is highjacking your thread, I made a valid point. If you don't agree with it, than say so and leave it at that.

Why do you feel compelled to come back with total B.S. to every post I make regarding Paul? If my post are so insignificant, why not just ignore them?

MW, see - this is also where the disconnect happens.

YOU "THINK" you have a valid argument. You don't. You made a wild and insubstantiated opinion, that is not VALID.

I would ignore your threads 'if' they came once in a great while. Then your behaviour could be tolerated, but you come in EVERY thread and do this.

I mean, just think for a second. You ignored ALL the countries of the world and made wild assertions about one. You didn't take into account "who" might be voting, how the voting is tabulated -- proxies, ip address, what the questions OF the poll is etc... Are they natives of the country or are they Americans living abroad etc...

What you did is, you pulled a Frank Luntz. You selectectively took a country, made wild assumptions and ignored all the posibilities and formed a nonvalid opinion. Just like my opinion of "WELL he is leading across the world, therefore he is the chosen one. etc..." that would be equally ridiculous, that is WHY I didn't make ANY opinion. The original poster just said "hey, check out this poll, kinda cool" -- and of course, you went over in a hurry and formed an opinion. You looked at mexio and said "I GOT HIM!!!!" All the while ignoring Israel, which flies in the face of other arguments I've seen you post here...

So MW, your 'opinion' is NOT a valid argument in the context in which you used it.

PineStrawGuys wrote:

I think Mexicans are voting for Dr. Paul based on his stand re: NAFTA.

You may be right, however, Tancredo and Hunter feel just as strongly against NAFTA as Paul does.

BrightNail wrote:

So MW, your 'opinion' is NOT a valid argument in the context in which you used it.

Is that your OPINION. Who are you to judge whether an opinion is valid or not? Regardless of what you think, aren't I entitled to have an opinion?

First off,

I DID NOT POST THE POLL.

I didn't say you did. With that fact in mind, why did you feel the need to personally direct a tantrum in my direction? If you disagree with my assessment, why not just give us your insight on the poll? There was absolutely no reason to use my post as an excuse to personally attack me (again).

THIRD, For anybody here to make assumptions on WHY someone in another country votes, is absolutely ridiculous.

I brought forth what I considered legitimate questions, not assumptions.

I find it VERY VERY TELLING, that YOU MW - come in and constantly raise negativity and then play the victim. Grow up. You sling mud, constantly, and when someone calls you out on your childish behaviour you play the victim. So what is the solution. Constantly getting into flame wars with you when there is not chance of any absolution, or call you on your bulls**t?

How am I playing the victim? All I'm asking you to do is utilize a little debate decorum. Do you honestly feel the above paragraph was necessary? Are you really the right person to be calling another childish? I would suggest that people living in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. Let me ask you this, do you feel you're accomplishing anything when you put me on the defensive each and every time you respond to one of my post? Do you really expect me to allow your rude and obnoxious behavior to slide? I've ask you a number of times to please quit attacking my character and personal integrity each time I post something you don't agree with. Do you see anyone else on ALIPAC responding to posters in that manner? Most folks on ALIPAC respect each other enough not to turn disagreements into personal attack.

After countering your arguments months ago

Your reality of time is a little scrambled, don't you think? You were not jumping on my back over every post I made months ago. Furthermore, in my opinion, you've seldom countered any of the posts I've made with a legitimate argument. All you've done up to this point is counter with Ron Paul talking points - you seldom introduce an argument with any substance against facts when they're presented.

I am sorry that your Hunter threads get minimal attention and frankly nobody is interesed. Though I do read them when I have have insomnia, puts me right to sleep.

That would be your problem, not mine.

Sure, I can CONCEED that this might be an "iraq" poll -- ala, end the war. If that was the case - Ron would win hands down because Obama WILL NOT end the war, Ron will. Also, - OTHER candidates will also end the war, but this poll does not reflect that -- so, we can't make ANY assumptions on the wisdom on these votes. Someone just pointed it out as an interesting thing. Nothing more, except in MW's mind.

Yes, I thought it was interesting too - hence the purpose for my post.

Also, tancredo and hunter could not win in mexico or any other place because between them they don't have enough votes to muster any opposition.

Of course Hunter and Tancredo couldn't win in Mexico! Both these gentlemen have verbally stated that all the illegal aliens in the United States must go. Furthermore, they both support strong border security. Unfortunately, Hunter has a weak voting record in that regard. He voted on House floor against an amendment to increase security with a border fence in 2005. This was an amnendment, so there was no pork involved. Furthermore, he has voted against sending the military to the border on seven separate occasions since 1999 (amendments). Of course you knew that.

What I find interesting is that Ron Paul emphatically said in debates and has written articles - many infact, and is rated a B+ by numbersUSA, WOULD NOT GRANT AMNESTY. This is a given, it is know.

No, Ron Paul's true position on amnesty is not a given. For example, John McCain has said he doesn't support amnesty either - yet he does support placing the illegal on a path to citizenship. It's all in the definition of amnesty. According to NumbersUSA Ron Paul has voted for amnesty before, what makes you think he won't do it again? Actually, Paul has supported what NumbersUSA calls amnesty on two separate occasions. Here's the evidence:

Voted FOR Section 245(i), a form of amnesty
for illegal aliens in 2002

Rep. Paul voted FOR H RES 365, which was brought up and passed in a new form in March of 2002. The vote in favor of the bill was a vote in favor of rewarding illegal aliens via a four-month reinstatement of Section 245(i). That is an expired immigration provision that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years, and even decades, later. The illegal aliens also would not have to go through the usual security screening in U.S. embassies in their home countries. The lowest estimate from supporters of the bill was that some 200,000 illegal aliens would benefit. H RES 365 included language that would implement some important visa-tracking regulations helpful to discouraging illegal immigration. But all of those provisions had already been passed previously in H.R. 3525, making the assistance to illegal aliens the sole purpose of the bill.

Rep. Paul was one of 275 Representatives who voted in favor of the 245(i) amnesty.

The bill narrowly passed by a vote of 275 to 137 (a two-thirds majority was needed in order to pass). Voted in favor of a four-month extension of Section 245(i) in 2001. Rep. Paul voted on the floor of the House IN FAVOR OF a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1885, a four-month extension of Section 245(i), which is a de facto amnesty in that current federal policy did not deport illegal aliens once they applied for Section 245(i) and allowed them to remain in the U.S. for years until they were allowed to become official immigrants. The vote on the four-month extension represented a compromise of the White House push for a longer extension. Even though the four month extension was better than a year-long or permanent extension, it still would have resulted in at least 200,000 more people being added to the country through illegal immigration. Rep. Paul was part of a 336-43 majority voting in favor of the four-month extension of Section 245(i). It did not become law, though.

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfil ... &VIPID=787


Nope, Hunter and Tancredo didn't vote for these amnesties, nor have they ever voted for an anything remotely resembling amnesty. I guess the "oh but there may have been pork in the bill" won't work in this instance because these are bills he actually voted for.


Paul's immigration grades for each Congress since 1997:

Session Year Grade
110 '07 - '08 B
109 '05 - '06 B+
108 '03 - '04 B
107 '01 - '02 D+
106 '99 - '00 B-
105 '97 - '98 D+

Let's compare that to Hunter and Tancredo's grades, shall we:

Hunter:

Session Year Grade
110 '07 - '08 A
109 '05 - '06 B+
108 '03 - '04 A
107 '01 - '02 B+
106 '99 - '00 A
105 '97 - '98 A-
104 '95 - '96 A+
103 '93 - '94 A
102 '91 - '92 No Votes
101 '89 - '90 A-

Tancredo:

Session Year Grade
110 '07 - '08 A+
109 '05 - '06 A
108 '03 - '04 A+
107 '01 - '02 A
106 '99 - '00 A

As you can see, according to NumbersUSA, Paul doesn't compare to Hunter and Tancredo on the illegal immigrant/border security issue.

And as BeafFlagRepublic noted, Ron is ahead in Israel - explain that MW.

I guess that just proves how insignificant the poll is in regards to our best interest.

BrightNail. I am sorry I included the world vote site on this thread as it distracted from the awesome full page ad and what this means in terms of allowing Millions of people to possibly learn more about Dr. Paul.

It was my intention to compliment the ad with more proof Dr. Paul's message is popular all over the world.

245i amendment WAS NOT INCLUDED IN the bill RON PAUL voted yea on.

Border Security
Amnesty
Separate from the Homeland Security bill, the President called for legislation to extend a now-expired loophole known as Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 245(i) allows an illegal alien to apply for a green card, stay permanently in the United States, and subsequently apply for citizenship. This is the proposal Sen. Robert Byrd called "sheer lunacy," and the reason why the July 4th Los Angeles Airport murderer was in our country. The open-borders crowd attached 245(i) extension to the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (H. Res. 365), which contained important border security measures.

On March 12, the House passed H. Res. 365 on suspension (no amendments and limited debate) 275 to 137 with 22 not voting (House Roll Call Vote 53). Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle planned to bring an amnesty bill to the Senate floor for debate and a vote, but it was never scheduled. The amnesty provision was excluded from the Border Security bill (H.R. 3525) that was signed by President Bush on May 14.

http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2002/10 ... rEnd.shtml

USPatriot, NO worries on posting that.. it was fine. It wasn't your "positivity" that steered the thread wrongly, but someone else's negativity - as usual. BUT lets move along... Check this out.

**********
This is from the Person that Paid for the Ad!
**********

Well, not much from the mainstream media, no surprise there.

Just another man bites dog story, nothing to see folks, move along.

But on the web. WOW WOW WOW!

800 plus emails of support and growing at the rate of about 1 per minute.

Soldiers in Iraq. Mothers, Fathers, Vets, Senior citizens. People thanking me for their children. The outpouring of love and support has been overwhelming. RP attracts good people--period. Only one negative email. Basically says I wasted my money. We will see. I am truly a lucky individual, but all the credit for this goes to RP and the message. I just wrote a check.

Many requests to re-run the advertisement in local papers. We really started a trend here. Think of the hundreds and thousands that will be exposed if the advertisment runs in hundreds of local papers.

I have had requests to translate the adv. into German, Spanish, Russian and several other languages. My reaction: GREAT. Just do it. This is our revolution.

Take initiative and make things happen.

I had the enormous privilege of speaking to Lew Rockwell last night. WOW!

His advice was for everyone to just go for it! He thinks we can win, but everyone has to pull hard to make it happen.

Finally, I had to include this video. I just received an email from Europe. The beginning is a little scratchy, just let it play through.

THIS VIDEO BLEW ME AWAY. We are not alone! They are going to have a Tea Party in Strasbourg France on Dec. 16th.

We are going to make world history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07TVB...XGTESBsMBxIoCn

Watch this and weep tears of joy.

LWL

Originally Posted by CitizenJustice

245i amendment WAS NOT INCLUDED IN the bill RON PAUL voted yea on.

Border Security
Amnesty
Separate from the Homeland Security bill, the President called for legislation to extend a now-expired loophole known as Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 245(i) allows an illegal alien to apply for a green card, stay permanently in the United States, and subsequently apply for citizenship. This is the proposal Sen. Robert Byrd called "sheer lunacy," and the reason why the July 4th Los Angeles Airport murderer was in our country. The open-borders crowd attached 245(i) extension to the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (H. Res. 365), which contained important border security measures.

On March 12, the House passed H. Res. 365 on suspension (no amendments and limited debate) 275 to 137 with 22 not voting (House Roll Call Vote 53). Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle planned to bring an amnesty bill to the Senate floor for debate and a vote, but it was never scheduled. The amnesty provision was excluded from the Border Security bill (H.R. 3525) that was signed by President Bush on May 14.

http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2002/10 ... rEnd.shtml

Save this for later. I guess "some" people have a habit of not doing much investigation.

video link doesn't work