Thread: Who to vote for? (President)

Originally Posted by minnie

Originally Posted by PFWAG

Since I assume immigration is your #1 issue, do an objective evaluation and go with it:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-95435.html

yOU HAVE ONLY 2 XCANDIDATES AGAINST AMNESTY.

There are more then two CANDIDATES AGAINST AMNESTY


http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-560324-.html#560324

Originally Posted by minnie

Originally Posted by usanevada

I agree about Fred

Not because he is CFR but because he seems
to have a hard time staying awake

FOR SURE BEING A CFR IS NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL....

Relations with foreign countries are extremely important as well as the military bases we have in those counties Military bases and Military actions we have in those counties.
I may not agree with all the council has said and done, but some accomplishments of Fine men are done through think tanks such as the CFR

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

[ but some accomplishments of Fine men are done through think tanks such as the CFR

What about the BILDERBERG GROUP, THE TRILATERAL COMISSION ? are they fine too ?

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

[

Fred has Cancer so he's a sick man

Poor man, He is sick. So it doesn't matter if he gives away our sovereignty .sob

Against amnesty

Romney
Thompson
Hunter
Ron Paul


You do the math

You forgot Guilliani and Mc'Cain.
OH! Obama too....

Originally Posted by usanevada

I agree about Fred

Not because he is CFR but because he seems
to have a hard time staying awake

So did Ronald Reagan and he did all right.

Originally Posted by minnie

YOU HAVE ONLY 2 CANDIDATES AGAINST AMNESTY.

Ron Paul - who is also against this WAR FOR GREED and against TORTURE

Duncan Hunter Who is FOR this war and FOR this shameful uncivilized TORTURE .

1. Ron Paul is weak on illegal immigration. On amnesty specifically, both Hunter and Thompson have far better stances. Paul is not much different than Hucklebee or Romney. He is, however, better than McCain or Guiliani if that makes you feel any better.

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-95435-.html

2. Ron Paul doesn't have a clue about what Islam is all about and the threat it poses to America - unless you would like living under Sharia law.

3. Since you didn't specifically mention what constitutes "TORTURE" I will assume you mean waterboarding. Pulling out fingernails, electrical shock, skinning a person alive, raping and murdering your family in front of you, making a person watch "An Inconvenient Truth" - that's torture.

Waterboarding scares the hell out of the person being waterboarded but does no physical harm. It is a very effective interrogation method.

I suppose if Ben Laden was about to nuke your city you would thank Ron Paul that the terrorists weren't waterboarded just before you are vaporized.

Not using waterboarding goes back to #2: Ron Paul doesn't have a clue about who are enemies are and what they are doing.


.

ALIPAC has not endorsed a candidate because of the very diverse opinions of it's members. William said in his last interview that instead of endorsing any one candidate that we'll be working to weed out the one's that are NOT acceptable.

Case in point, Mike Huckabee. Two months ago we didn't know anything about him and I at least figured he was an OK guy. Then people start digging into his 'accomplishments' and the truth begins to worm it's way to the surface. There's PLENTY of time to let the truth worm it's way out for the rest of them.

Originally Posted by PFWAG

Originally Posted by minnie

YOU HAVE ONLY 2 CANDIDATES AGAINST AMNESTY.

Ron Paul - who is also against this WAR FOR GREED and against TORTURE

Duncan Hunter Who is FOR this war and FOR this shameful uncivilized TORTURE .

1. Ron Paul is weak on illegal immigration. On amnesty specifically, both Hunter and Thompson have far better stances. Paul is not much different than Hucklebee or Romney. He is, however, better than McCain or Guiliani if that makes you feel any better.

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-95435-.html

2. Ron Paul doesn't have a clue about what Islam is all about and the threat it poses to America - unless you would like living under Sharia law.

3. Since you didn't specifically mention what constitutes "TORTURE" I will assume you mean waterboarding. Pulling out fingernails, electrical shock, skinning a person alive, raping and murdering your family in front of you, making a person watch "An Inconvenient Truth" - that's torture.

Waterboarding scares the hell out of the person being waterboarded but does no physical harm. It is a very effective interrogation method.

I suppose if Ben Laden was about to nuke your city you would thank Ron Paul that the terrorists weren't waterboarded just before you are vaporized.

Not using waterboarding goes back to #2: Ron Paul doesn't have a clue about who are enemies are and what they are doing.


.

Right you are on the torture. These kind of people think torture is putting a bag on their heads and having a dog bark at them. Shut Gitmo now! kind of talk. Don't even ask them about tazer guns.
Now, where I might differ with you, is Paul's stance on Islam. From what I gathered he understands the threat very well; but also firmly believes they are responding to our interference in the Middle east and our support of Israel. He says we are actually restraining Israel, who can take care of herself. I think he's got a point. If we left few bases, finish our obligation to Iraq, and use the troops to protect our borders here - is that so crazy?
Secondly, would someone tell me if Paul truly thinks all drugs should be legalized? That sounds crazy to me.